Oral Answers to Questions

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Speed Limits

Julia Drown: When the new local authorities' guide for the setting of speed limits will be published.

David Jamieson: Guidance on the setting of speed limits already exists in the form of roads circular 1/93. The Government are committed to reducing the number of casualties and those killed and seriously injured on our roads caused by excessive and inappropriate road speed. Later this year, we will develop new guidance for setting local speed limits.

Julia Drown: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and I urge him to get that new guidance to local authorities as soon as possible. Swindon parents tell me that they would like more factors to be taken into account when considering speed limits. They want speed limits to be reduced, particularly outside schools. Will the new guidance allow matters such as environmental factors, the fear of accidents and things that might encourage more people to walk their children to school to be taken into account in considering speed limits, rather than just the accidents that have taken place?

David Jamieson: I have some good news for my hon. Friend: there is no need to wait for the new guidance. Since 1999, highways authorities have been able to apply 20 mph zones without authorisation from the Secretary of State. Road safety will always be a prime concern of highways authorities when introducing speed limits. However, they can also consider environmental and quality of life issues as well. Reducing the perception of danger encourages people to walk and cycle, particularly on the school run and in the vicinity of schools, which, in turn, improves the quality of life of people, particularly in the rural areas.

Andrew MacKay: Does the Minister accept that although there is clearly a strong case to reduce speed limits in vulnerable areas, such as outside schools, it is equally important on dual carriageways where there is no possibility of encountering pedestrians to increase too low speed limits, which bring the whole speed limit process into disrepute and can often cause speeding?

David Jamieson: The thrust of what the right hon. Gentleman says is correct. What we are talking about is speed limits that are appropriate to the circumstances, and what we need to consider, particularly in rural areas, is having appropriate speed limits for the circumstances, and ensuring that those speed limits are enforceable is very important. In particular, we need to focus our efforts on those places where there have been casualties and injuries and where people have been killed and seriously injured.

Andrew Miller: In encouraging local authorities to determine appropriate speed limits, will my hon. Friend say that they should make that decision on what is appropriate, not on guidance from police authorities, which sometimes mistakenly give the advice, "Don't reduce this speed limit because we haven't got the resources to enforce it."?

David Jamieson: Although the resources available to local authorities have increased very substantially under our local transport plans—most authorities have had two or three times as much money in recent years—it is important, as my hon. Friend says, that those resources are used to best effect and to reduce the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads. Of course I hope that, whenever those decisions are made, the highways authorities will work in co-operation with the local police.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome the Government's commitment to reduce the number of casualties on our roads and to introduce guidance on setting local speed limits, so will the Under-Secretary now agree to accept our new clause 21 to the Railways and Transport Safety Bill, setting out a rural road hierarchy and a range of speed limits as appropriate?

David Jamieson: We recognise the hierarchy that the hon. Lady first proposed in her new clause, but the proposals that we first saw would be deeply intrusive in some rural areas in the number of signs and engineering works that would be needed. Of course that would be very costly, and we would have to consider the benefits that any expenditure would achieve to ensure that the cost was reasonable. As I said in a previous reply, we must focus the resources where the need is greatest and where the problems exist. There is very substantial extra funding in local authorities to do that, and we hope that they will direct its use to where the dangers and problems are greatest.

Railways

Gary Streeter: What discussions he has had in recent weeks with the Strategic Rail Authority about journey times to Plymouth.

David Jamieson: Ministers have met the Strategic Rail Authority to discuss the Greater Western franchise. First Great Western introduced a three-hour service from London to Plymouth last year. A regular three-hour journey time from Plymouth to London would be welcome, but performance and capacity improvements are a greater priority at present.

Gary Streeter: I welcome the Minister's reply, but does he agree that, given the obvious difficulty of significantly improving air and road links to the far south-west, the best way to underpin the local economy is to cut journey times by train to Plymouth from London? Will he therefore put maximum pressure on the SRA to agree to a typical journey time of three hours, which has been put to the SRA in its new timetable proposals, so that business people, particularly those from Plymouth, can get to London and back for business meetings in comfort, thus underpinning and helping the local economy?

David Jamieson: I share with the hon. Gentleman the ambition not just for road and air links to be good, but for the rail service to be good, too. Our present aim is also to improve the reliability and predictability of the service. Bringing together the Wessex, the Thames and the First Great Western franchise into a Greater Western franchise in 2006 will allow for better utilisation of track capacity and will ease co-ordination between short and long journey services. I have indicated once previously that the improvements that we will make around Reading will substantially improve the journey times to and from Plymouth.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend will be aware of the contrast between the successful state railways on the continent of Europe and the privatised, fragmented mess that we have over here. Is it not time that my hon. Friend advised the Strategic Rail Authority to imitate what is done on the continent of Europe and make our railways like theirs?

David Jamieson: We are asking the SRA to make sure that the railway provides the services that we want in this country. There will be no turning back of the clock: we want to turn the clock forward to ensure that the railway delivers the high-quality service that the people in this country deserve—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are discussing journey times to Plymouth.

Tim Collins: Will not travellers to and from Plymouth share the assessment of 28 local authorities, 13 of them run by the Labour party, that the cutbacks by the Strategic Rail Authority in rail services are resurrecting
	"the spirit of Dr Beeching"?

David Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman is referring to a tiny number of services—less than 1 per cent.—that are there to improve the capacity utilisation of the railways. We must all dwell on what would happen in the very unlikely event of the hon. Gentleman and his party forming a Government. What kind of cuts would they make to our rail service and to the amount of money available for transport, and what kind of impact would that have on services to and from Plymouth?

Tim Collins: Will not travellers to and from Plymouth also want to know that after two rounds of SRA cutbacks, there will not be a third? Can the Minister commit himself to that?

David Jamieson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the services to and from Plymouth and the west country have and are being secured. The policies that we are carrying out will improve the service to and from that particular area. Again, what the people of the west country will dwell on very much is the policies of all three parties in this area. The Liberal Democrats, as well as the Conservatives, are considering certain cuts, and those will be in people's minds.

Buses

Michael Foster: If he will make a statement on the integration of bus services with other forms of transport in Worcestershire.

John Spellar: We encourage all local transport authorities to use their powers to promote through-ticketing, better co-ordination of services, improved accessibility, wider availability of information and improved waiting facilities. A new integrated rail-bus ticket named PlusBus has been introduced recently by the bus and rail industries. Although stations in Worcestershire are not currently participating in the scheme, it is expected that it will be extended progressively to cover all major towns.

Michael Foster: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. One of the biggest obstacles to integrated transport in Worcestershire is the level of bus fares within Worcester city. It is claimed that Worcester city has the highest bus fares in Britain. Will he investigate that claim so that we can put pressure on the county council and the bus company to enable my constituents to pay the lower fares that seem to be paid in other parts of the county?

John Spellar: I am concerned to hear about that. I have been aware of previous problems with local bus services in Worcestershire following a major review of the existing network of services. In addition, Worcestershire county council had approved an additional £400,000 funding to replace some services, and was carrying out its own review of bus service provision in the county. With the additional information provided by my hon. Friend—who is as assiduous as ever on behalf of his constituents—I will investigate those points further.

Peter Luff: I am sure that the Minister will want to pay tribute to what the private train operating companies have done to improve integration between bus and train services in Worcestershire. Does he agree that if we are to get people out of their cars and on to public transport, the integration that really matters is that between car and train? In that respect, will he join me in supporting a Worcester parkway station to provide decent parking facilities for car users, as none of the Worcester stations has decent car parking at present?

John Spellar: I am not sure whether I am being tempted into making a planning decision. However, on the Chiltern line in Warwickshire there is an extremely successful parkway. The Chiltern line now runs well into Worcestershire and provides an increasingly popular service down to London. That shows how the innovation and enterprise of a number of companies is causing the market to grow. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about car parking facilities; but would add that integrating public transport as effectively as possible will provide people with real alternatives. We will look into that particular aspect.

Railways

Mark Todd: What measures he has taken to improve access to rail services for citizens of South Derbyshire.

John Spellar: The Strategic Rail Authority is working to improve rail services across the country. We are supporting Derbyshire county council's local transport plan, which includes the setting up of a rural transport partnership to help tackle transport issues in South Derbyshire.

Mark Todd: The Minister will forgive my lack of enthusiasm for that modest response. I draw his attention to three projects that would certainly add to the accessibility of rail services in South Derbyshire: first, progress on the east midlands parkway, which has not so far been assisted by the SRA; secondly, the opening of the Donnington loop between Willington and Nottingham, which was commended in the M1 study but has not been proceeded with by the Government; and thirdly, the national forest line between Leicester and Burton, a line which would eventually go to Derby.

John Spellar: I understand the demand for a new parkway station. There is pressure on budgets and, with the east midlands airport parkway, there have been some difficulties in getting agreement among all the parties concerned.
	The national forest line used to be referred to as the Ivanhoe line. Strong pressure has come from Derbyshire councils on that issue, which will also require the support of Staffordshire councils. With changing travel-to-work patterns—such as those seen on the Robin Hood line—we acknowledge that the extension of services on to what have traditionally been freight lines, and the expansion of commuter services, can be of considerable advantage in helping businesses in city centres and in providing different work opportunities for people along the routes.

Patrick McLoughlin: Last year, it was announced that a new service of 10 trains a day would operate from Matlock to Birmingham, also serving South Derbyshire. That new service has now been cut to two trains a day within three months of coming into operation. Is that a good message to send out to encourage the use of public transport?

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that expansion on a number of routes was found to be detrimental to reliability. When I considered the question of a cut in the service from Derby to Birmingham, I found that the five services an hour had gone down to four services an hour, which it had previously been. The SRA has rightly considered reliability—particularly in the Birmingham hub area—and the ability of all the rail companies to deliver their services. That was the right way to deal with the issue, because reliability is extremely important in developing the railway service. That service will undoubtedly have to be fine-tuned, and I am always prepared—as is the SRA—to consider particular services; but the principle underlying what has been done is absolutely right.

Waterloo Station

Andrew Turner: What steps he is taking to improve the level and quality of services into Waterloo station.

Alistair Darling: South West Trains has ordered 785 new vehicles and Network Rail is upgrading the power supply to allow for that. The first trains should come into service in the spring. The revised South West Trains franchise requires a robust service with fewer cancellations and with more trains arriving at their destinations on time.

Andrew Turner: We have heard about cutback after cutback after cutback but the Secretary of State seems to suggest that things are getting better. In Southampton, there has been a cut not of 1 per cent., which the Under-Secretary suggested, but of 25 per cent. in off-peak services. For well-connected services to my constituency, that represents a cut of 50 per cent. How will that get people off the road and on to rail?

Alistair Darling: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary suggested, we have severe problems with congestion on part of the rail network. If the SRA had not taken action to remove off-peak trains, the congestion and severe problems with reliability would continue. The problem in the past, following privatisation, was that more and more trains were allowed on to a network that frankly could not take them.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a point about South West Trains, and 74 out of 1,700 services a day have been withdrawn. That will allow for greater reliability and for longer trains with increased capacity at peak times. That will provide a better service. However, if the SRA had left matters as they were, the congestion and lack of reliability would continue. That cannot be in the interests of anyone using the railways.

James Gray: The Secretary of State knows that my constituents have recently suffered the body blow of the cancellation of the Bristol to Oxford line and the resulting cancellation of the Corsham station project. Will he confirm the rumours that the service from Corsham through west Wiltshire and into Waterloo is also being challenged by the SRA? [Interruption.] Hon. Members are shouting, so I shall repeat my question. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the service from Corsham and west Wiltshire into Waterloo, which it is widely rumoured will be cancelled by the SRA, will not be cancelled?

Andrew MacKinlay: Give him a map.

Alistair Darling: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have got to Waterloo eventually if he had been given the time. However, I do not know whether that would help with congestion.
	The SRA has an obligation to do everything that it can to make trains services reliable. It is doing no one any good at all to continue with a situation in which more and more trains that were advertised did not run on time. They were subject to delays and cancellations simply because the network could not take them. As a result of the changes that are being made—there will be further changes to the timetable from time to time—the SRA is freeing up pathways to allow trains to run particularly at peak times. It is allowing for further and increased turn-around times, so that if trains lose time they can make it up.
	If the hon. Gentleman cares to listen for a moment, I shall point out to him that the situation that we inherited in which more and more trains were trying to run down track that could not take them simply resulted in there being more and more unreliability. That is totally unacceptable to the people of this country.

Aviation Fuel

Simon Thomas: If he will make a statement on his policy on reducing the use of aviation fuel.

Alistair Darling: As the consultation document made clear last summer, the Government's policy is that the airline industry should meet the costs of its environmental impact and, as part of that objective, it should maximise fuel efficiency.

Simon Thomas: Is it not the truth that the Government's policy on aviation fuel is all over the shop? The Secretary of State rejected the report from the royal commission on environmental pollution, yet the White Paper on energy says that we must reduce the use of aviation fuel and meet the external costs on the environment of aviation use. If 15 per cent. of global warming by 2050 will be created by aviation use, as predicted by the international panel on climate change, what will the Government do to address that real disaster in the making? Is there not a lesson to be learned from road charging?

Alistair Darling: On aviation, the Government made it clear last summer, when we published the consultation document on airport capacity, that the airline industry should meet the costs of the environmental impact that it causes. The hon. Gentleman must realise that most agreements on the taxation of aviation fuel, for example, are international agreements. It is not open to this country to take unilateral action. Indeed, that would not be effective at all. I know that he is a Welsh nationalist, but surely even he must realise that we have obligations outside our borders. We have made it clear time and time again that the industry needs to meet its environmental costs, and we will shortly be publishing a consultation document to explore how it can better do that while we have regard to our international obligations.

Lynne Jones: Now that congestion charging in London has been successful, will the Government consider being as bold as the Mayor and advocate the extension of congestion charging—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question should be about aviation fuel.

Norman Baker: If the Minister wants the airline industry to meet its costs environmentally in terms of aviation fuel, will he support an EU-wide tax on aviation fuel if it is not possible to secure international agreement? Otherwise, carbon dioxide emissions will double between 1990 and 2010 and a predict and provide policy will disfigure our countryside.

Alistair Darling: There are two points in relation to that. First, on reductions in air fares, even additional taxation would not put air fares back up to where they were. Many of the cost reductions have resulted from the low-cost airlines and others stripping out the costs of their operation. The policy that the hon. Gentleman advocates would not have the effect that he wants.
	Secondly, a Europe-wide taxation regime might help in some respects, and it is worth considering, but it would not resolve the problem that would arise in relation to longer-distance flights or aircraft that are capable of flying outside the European Union, loading up with cheaper fuel, then coming back in. That might exacerbate the situation. I would say to the hon. Gentleman, as I said to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), that the problem relates particularly to taxation and needs to be resolved as part of an international agreement. Other measures can be taken to improve aircraft engine technology to make engines more efficient and to reduce noise. There have been significant improvements over the past 30 years, and I have no doubt that more will follow. These are all matters that the Government will shortly consider and consult on. We cannot, however, ignore the fact that this is by its nature a highly international business, and it is not as easy as the hon. Gentleman seems to think to resolve the matter, even within Europe.

Tam Dalyell: The Secretary of State, together with you, Mr. Speaker, and the rest of us regulars on the Edinburgh and Glasgow routes, will have developed a pretty good nodding acquaintance with every cubic metre of the upper atmosphere above Watford, which is pretty expensive in fuel terms. Is part of the problem the shortage of air traffic controllers, and would there be less hanging around over Watford if there were more skilled air traffic controllers?

Alistair Darling: Like my hon. Friend, I, too, have a nodding acquaintance with every inch of sky between Edinburgh and London. He makes a fair point. There are fewer air traffic controllers than there should be, but their numbers are increasing. National Air Traffic Services has plans to recruit more air traffic controllers, which will result in less delay around Heathrow and other airports. I looked at the figures over the weekend, and it is encouraging that delays attributable to air traffic control are decreasing, but an awful lot more needs to be done.

Congestion Charging

Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the timetable for introducing guidelines on exemptions and concessions in relation to congestion charging.

Alistair Darling: We will consult on a uniform minimum standard of exemptions and concessions once we have had an opportunity to consider the experience gained from road user charging schemes in London and Durham.

Vincent Cable: Does the Secretary of State agree that although the congestion charge in London has so far been a considerable success in traffic terms, there are many unfair exemptions deriving from the blue badge scheme? Will he urgently introduce new guidance to deal with cruel anomalies such as the situation faced by 150 thalidomide victims who have been refused exemptions, despite the fact that they are not capable of using public transport?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right that the London congestion charging scheme has worked far better than many people thought that it would. However, as I have said on many occasions, it will take several months to evaluate its effect. Another point that I have often made is that it is for the Mayor to decide which exemptions he wishes to put in place. The way in which the legislation was framed made it absolutely clear that it would be for the Mayor in London, just as it is for local authorities around the country, to decide on the nature of the scheme and its exemptions. When the Government consult on minimum standards, they will be high level and generalised standards to ensure that there are no glaring inconsistencies between local authorities. I would say to the hon. Gentleman, or to anyone else who believes that the London scheme needs refinement in relation to exemptions, that that is a matter for the Mayor to resolve, as the legislation always intended.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear whether or not the Government support the extension of congestion charging?

Alistair Darling: I made it clear to my hon. Friend's Committee, and many times to the House, that congestion charging is one of a number of options that local authorities can use. Whether it is appropriate for particular towns and cities depends on the local authority. That is how the legislation is drafted. I have also made it clear that I know full well that many local authorities have been waiting to see what happens in London before deciding whether to proceed with congestion charging. As I said last week in relation to congestion charging and other developments, such as the tolling of the M6 when the toll road opens—probably at the beginning of next year—developments are taking place that will allow people to learn from what is actually happening rather than what might happen in theory. That will better inform local authorities and the Government on what measures are workable and acceptable in managing demand for road space.

Christopher Chope: The Secretary of State is trying to absolve himself from responsibility for the exemption scheme. The Government took the power in legislation to impose exemptions and concessions. Why do they not use that power to ensure that the scheme does not inflict so much damage on their policy of social exclusion? The latest report from the social exclusion unit shows that householders who are car owners and in the 20 per cent. lowest range of incomes have to pay 24 per cent. of household income in car taxes. That is unjust. Why do not the Government do something about that in the name of social inclusion?

Alistair Darling: I must say that I had no idea that the hon. Gentleman was bothered about social inclusion. There was not much sign of that when he was a Minister.
	On the specific scheme, it has always been the case that it would be up to the Mayor of London to put arrangements in place and to decide the appropriate exemptions. It is his scheme and for him to decide what exemptions are justified. On social inclusion, it is worth bearing in mind that about 90 per cent. of people who come into central London do so on public transport. Many of the remaining 10 per cent. may be in a difficult position, but it is for the Mayor to sort that out. One of the best things that can be done to help social inclusion is to invest in public transport. The hon. Gentleman and his party want to cut public investment by 20 per cent. That would be bound to have an adverse effect on social inclusion.

Railways

Vernon Coaker: What recent assessment he has made of the plans Network Rail have to improve the signalling and track from Nottingham to London.

John Spellar: None. I understand that the Strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail are working together on a range of strategic measures to include in the midland main line route plan. This will form part of Network Rail's 2003 business plan, due to be published in April.

Vernon Coaker: Given the billions of pounds that are being invested in St. Pancras station as part of the channel tunnel rail link, would not it be sensible to invest a significant amount in the midland main line so that we have a fast link between Nottingham and that part of the east midlands into London? Although there is a need to invest in the west and east coast main lines, many of us in that part of the east midlands think that the midland main line is often neglected when it comes to investment decisions.

John Spellar: I know of my hon. Friend's considerable interest in the subject, which he regularly raises with us. He will be aware of the major transport interchange in the St. Pancras and King's Cross complex. We are keen to encourage development of the midland main line. As for the details, we will have to await the outcome of the work by Network Rail on, for example, signalling, which will no doubt cover the famous Trent signal box.

Richard Allan: Speaking as an hon. Member who represents Sheffield, I add my voice to the calls for the midland main line to be a higher priority. Will the Minister consider doing something about the rolling stock on that route? It is distinctly inadequate and there are frequent cancellations simply because trains are not available.

John Spellar: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, considerable work is being done on the renewal and replacement of the high-speed train fleet. That is of particular significance to the midland main line and other routes. I must say that when I have used the midland main line, it has been remarkably reliable.

Airport Security

Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on airport security.

Alistair Darling: The terrorist threat to UK interests and UK aviation remains a very real one. Heightened aviation security measures have been in place since September 2001 at all UK airports for all airlines operating from the UK and for UK airlines overseas. These are kept under constant review and are amended or supplemented as and when required.

Brian Iddon: On the police service parliamentary scheme, I recently studied policing at Schiphol and Manchester airports. In the Netherlands, one security force is responsible for all aspects of security at major airports like Schiphol. However, in British airports we have the local police, special branch, the immigration and nationality directorate and Customs and Excise. Even the individual carriers and baggage handlers have their own security people. Is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am that while there is a lot of good will among those individual forces, there may not be adequate consultation between them?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend raises a matter that was acknowledged by Sir John Wheeler, whom the Home Secretary and I asked to carry out a review of airport security. He identified cases in which we could improve the working relationship between the police and others, and we are in the process of doing so at the moment. I would caution against a wholesale organisational change, as that can often lead to people taking their eye off the immediate problem. However, where there are problems concerning organisations not working together as closely as they should, we will deal with them as and when the occasion demands. However, both the Home Secretary and I are concerned that Wheeler's recommendations should be implemented as quickly as possible, and are working to do so.

Don Foster: Can the Secretary of State confirm that following a recent new risk analysis, aeroplanes coming in from certain countries can no longer park at the main stand but must park and disembark their passengers away from the stand? If so, which countries are involved? Can the Secretary of State also explain why, 16 months on since the first occasion on which I raised the matter, it is still possible for staff to work airside—the most vulnerable part of the airport—without full security clearance, as long as they are supervised? Does he not accept that supervision can never be 100 per cent. secure? Surely action should have been taken a long time ago?

Alistair Darling: On the first point, I am anxious to be as helpful to the hon. Gentleman and the House as possible, but it would be unwise of me to disclose what is done for operational reasons from time to time. I think that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will accept my reasons for doing so. However, I can say that we keep the nature of the threat and the places where it may come from under review all the time. From time to time, it is necessary to do things at Heathrow and other airports to try to control or mitigate that threat. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said a short while ago in a statement to the House, it is neither possible nor wise of Ministers to provide a "running commentary" on what is happening from day to day.
	The threat at our airports is real in nature and is likely to continue for a long time. In this country, we have lived under the threat of terrorism from the IRA for some 30 years, and I am afraid that we are going to have to come to terms with living with a different, and in many ways more substantial, threat. It will be necessary for us to take appropriate action from time to time, but it would not be wise of me to maintain a running commentary in public on what we are doing.

Andrew MacKinlay: Will the Secretary of State comment on the illogical situation whereby some airports pay for policing while other expanding, quite large, airports do not? It is not fair competition policy, nor is it fair to the council tax payer that that disparity should endure.

Alistair Darling: It is no doubt one of things that we will look at. My concern, and the concern of my Department, is to make sure that there is adequate policing, no matter what the source of finance. It is for the Home Office to decide the appropriate funding of police forces. I need to be satisfied that there is an adequate police service at every airport, depending on their size and the nature of the threat that may exist.

George Osborne: In recent weeks, armed police have been deployed in my constituency to protect the flight path from Manchester airport as a result of the recent scare. Without providing a running commentary, as the Secretary of State said, does he nevertheless agree that it is vital that airport communities be provided with clear information about what is being done, and that we should avoid alarmist statements from members of the Government and others?

Alistair Darling: Alarmist statements, no matter where they come from, should be avoided because they are usually unhelpful. Yes, we will try and keep the public and everybody who has a direct interest informed as much as we can, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman will accept that there can be occasions when information becomes available and action needs to be taken immediately. Sometimes it is overt, sometimes it is covert, but it is not always wise to make a public announcement about what is happening all the time. I should have thought it was obvious to the hon. Gentleman that to reveal what we know, and therefore possibly, by implication, what we do not know, would not help anyone at all.

Gordon Prentice: We all appreciate the need for tighter airport security, but what is being done to get more X-ray scanners operational? The number of times I have been stuck at Heathrow with huge numbers of people trying to get through one or two scanners is ridiculous. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with BAA and other airport authorities to tackle the problem?

Alistair Darling: As it happens, I had an interesting discussion about just that matter a couple of weeks ago. The problem at Heathrow, particularly in relation to the domestic departures area, which is probably the one where my hon. Friend was held up, is not a lack of scanners, but a failure to deploy the right number of staff at specific times. It has been a problem at Heathrow since Christmas. There is a system in place to step up the numbers of staff to meet the flow, which is fairly predictable, but on a number of occasions that has not been done. We have spoken to BAA about that. People will put up with the inconvenience of being searched, but they cannot understand why the queue sometimes stretches right out across the concourse because staffing levels are inadequate. It is a staffing problem, rather than a problem with the scanners themselves.

Metronet Bond Issue

Richard Bacon: If he will make a statement about the public bond issue by Metronet.

Alistair Darling: The first three PPP contracts were completed with Tube Lines on 31 December. I expect the other two contracts to be completed with Metronet shortly. Metronet plans to raise part of the necessary finance through a bond offering.

Richard Bacon: Can the Secretary of State confirm that when the disclosure period for the Metronet bond issue starts, there will be full disclosure in line with previous practice; or will it be like the recent PFI bond issued in connection with the upgrading of the A1 in Yorkshire by Road Management Services (Finance) plc, in which important information was blacked out before the documents were deposited at the lawyers Freshfields, so that taxpayers cannot find out what is going on?

Alistair Darling: I am sure that Metronet will comply with all the obligations incumbent upon it in relation to its bond launch. That is what it must do.

Buses

Laura Moffatt: What recent assessment he has made of the impact of modern, reliable bus services on reducing car usage; and if he will make a statement.

John Spellar: Current and potential bus users consistently rate improvements to frequency, punctuality, reliability and cost as the factors most likely to encourage them to make better use of bus services. Significant increases in patronage, typically between 5 per cent. and 25 per cent., but occasionally significantly more, have followed major improvements on bus corridors. Studies suggest that about one third of new users previously made the journey by car.

Laura Moffatt: My constituents will be greatly heartened by that. We are undergoing a huge programme to introduce the Fastway bus system, which I am glad to say my right hon. Friend visited a few weeks ago. Inevitably, there is much disruption, and my constituents need to know that that disruption will pay off in the long run, and that they will have a better environment and a better way of getting to Gatwick airport, in particular. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the disruption is well worth the effort?

John Spellar: I was very impressed by the partnership between the local council, the county council and the bus company in producing a scheme that they and I believe will be of real benefit to the people of Crawley and will enable Crawley to continue to be an economically dynamic city. It has been encouraging to see that. My hon. Friend can take heart from the increases in patronage that have taken place in other areas where similar systems have been introduced—as I said, between 5 and 25 per cent. That has been a real benefit to existing bus travellers and an encouragement to those who previously went by car to consider the new system as a sensible alternative.

Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister accept that in many parts of the country, particularly rural areas, there is little or no public transport, so cars are essential if people are to have an acceptable form of mobility? Does he agree that if people are to use public transport, particularly buses, there must be adequate park and ride or car parking for those who come from areas where there is no public transport to link up with bus services? What encouragement is he giving to councils throughout the country to introduce more park and ride, so that there is adequate parking for people who have to get to a bus service before they can use it?

John Spellar: Of course, far more people in rural areas now have access to bus services than previously, not least because of various rural bus grants that have been of significant advantage. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point. As I told the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), there is considerable scope for park-and-ride facilities that link with either bus or rail stations. That requires proper partnership between local authorities, bus companies and rail companies. In some areas, that is working very well, and some companies are extremely innovative, while others are not moving so fast. We are trying to encourage the average companies to come up to the level of the best. If he has a particular problem in his area that he would like me to address, I shall be more than happy to receive representations from him.

John Cryer: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in some areas where bus services have been deregulated, largely outside London, the promised increased reliability has failed to materialise. That has happened because some of the operators choose to run buses that are not properly maintained and, in some cases, not even properly cleaned. That has obvious implications for safety as well as reliability. Does that not imply that at the very best we should be considering some extension of public ownership such as that which has already been made on some routes in London, or at the very least an increase in regulation?

John Spellar: Even in London, the buses are run by private companies, although under a different regime. If my hon. Friend believes that companies are running vehicles that are unsafe or not properly maintained, or has information in that regard, the matter should be referred to the traffic commissioners, who are responsible for considering such matters. He is right to say that there are variations in performance. That is exactly why we have established between local authorities and bus companies the Bus Partnership Forum, which is considering a number of the issues that have been nagging away at those bodies for years. It is also starting to thrash out the details and new policies needed to achieve much better practice throughout the country, to the benefit of bus passengers and transport as a whole.

Boris Johnson: May I point out to the Minister that there has been a serious reduction in bus routes in south Oxfordshire, affecting the Reading-Goring and Chinnor-Thame routes and several others? May I also invite him to explain why the £20 million rural bus challenge seems to have done very little except make life more challenging for rural bus users? Can he allay the justified suspicions of those who think that that is caused partly by money being cynically skewed away from well run councils in the shires and the south and directed towards badly run Labour councils in the north?

John Spellar: Local authorities throughout the country have had a significant increase in their moneys for local transport plans. I shall, of course, check the increase that Oxfordshire has received. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to the local authority as to how it spends its money. The rural bus challenge has had a significant effect and made a considerable improvement in many areas. I cannot instantly recall what schemes have been introduced by Oxfordshire county council and whether they have been agreed by us. However, in general, the rural bus challenge has made a significant improvement. More people have been given access to bus services, and the initiative has helped to reduce rural isolation and provide access to shops and employment, as well as health and education facilities.

A1

John Mann: What plans he has to upgrade the A1 in Bassetlaw.

John Spellar: In line with the Government's policy of reducing congestion and improving safety on trunk roads, there are plans to carry out major improvements at several junctions on the A1 in Bassetlaw. Those include replacement of the roundabouts at Blyth, Apleyhead and Markham Moor with flyover junctions and the provision of a new junction to provide access to Elkesley village.

John Mann: After 30 years of procrastination, my constituents are delighted that we have a Government who are prepared to put in the investment. Indeed, my constituents will be singing and dancing alongside the traffic queues, soon to go. So enthused are they that should the Minister contemplate going further and bringing motorways in as part of that investment, there will be further support. Will he consider the enthusiasm of my constituents in terms of future motorway improvements?

John Spellar: I am sure that I will have the opportunity to do that when I visit my hon. Friend's constituency in just over a week, when the enthusiasm of his constituents will no doubt be manifest.

CABINET OFFICE

The Minister of State was asked—

Ombudsman

Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on the Public Administration Committee's third report, on ombudsman issues, with special reference to the role of the Cabinet Office.

Douglas Alexander: We will study the Committee's report and respond in the normal way.

Andrew Robathan: This report deals, first, with the Hinduja cover up and, secondly, a less known cover up, which was described by the ombudsman as the only occasion on which the Government have refused to accept the ombudsman's findings on a matter of access to Government information. We hear a great deal about freedom of information from this Government, but when it comes to reality there is no freedom of information and one cannot find anything out because they are so secretive.
	The report's second recommendation is:
	"We recommend that the Government reconsider its decision to refuse to accept the Ombudsman's findings in the case of Mr Robathan and publish the required information."
	Will the Government accept the findings of the Public Administration Committee, which is dominated and chaired by Labour Members?

Douglas Alexander: As I have made clear, the Government will consider the Committee's recommendations and respond formally in the usual way. In the first place, that will, of course, be to the Select Committee.

Kevin Brennan: I am one of the Members who "dominates" the Public Administration Committee. Will the Minister take note of the fact that the new ombudsman is appearing before us this week? We might want to ask also about press reports that the Government are resisting releasing information on gifts to Ministers, so will he perhaps enlighten us further as to Government policy on freedom of information regarding gifts to Ministers?

Douglas Alexander: The final decision on what is in the report is obviously a matter for the ombudsman, Ann Abraham. I should point out that I had a constructive meeting with the new ombudsman last week in which we discussed the evolving role of the ombudsman. There is the basis there for an extremely constructive relationship.

Correspondence

John Bercow: If he will make a statement on steps that he is taking to reduce the time taken by Ministers to reply to Members' letters.

Douglas Alexander: The Cabinet Office issues guidance to Departments on handling correspondence from Members of Parliament. However, it is up to individual Ministers to ensure that their Department responds to all correspondence promptly and accurately.
	When that issue was raised with me last month by Members, I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary, who has in turn written to Departments reminding them to ensure that every effort is made to handle correspondence efficiently.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for that informative reply. Given that the Cabinet Office guidance states that the handling of correspondence with Members of Parliament, peers and the general public is an issue to which the Government "attaches the greatest importance", can he explain to me why the letter that I sent on 7 May 2002 on behalf of my constituent, Mr. Steve Watkins of 72 Embleton Way, Buckingham, on the national health service human resources and payroll system, did not receive a reply from the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), until 16 January this year? On the assumption that the Minister regards that delay of eight months and nine days as unacceptable, when will he do something about it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have only 10 minutes.

Douglas Alexander: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First, I am happy to take that matter up with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, I have already corresponded with him since the last Cabinet Office Question Time in relation to correspondence to the Department of Health. It is important to point out for the benefit of the House the scale of the challenge facing Departments: about 160,000 letters from Members were received across Departments in 2001 and the Prime Minister alone received more than 1 million letters from the general public in 2002.

Harry Barnes: Are Ministers encouraged to deal with letters in a number of ways? Some communications are urgent and need swift responses, while others may be more routine. Of course we do not want to wait for as long as eight months for answers to those, but should not important communications be upgraded?

Douglas Alexander: I am sympathetic to that point. Obviously it would be wise to identify the relevant Minister in such correspondence, but the fact remains that we should try to answer all letters as expeditiously as possible. Targets are set by specific Whitehall Departments, and it is on that basis that individual Ministers are responsible, consistent with Cabinet Office guidance.

Richard Allan: As the Minister will know, many organisations have become considerably more efficient by using electronic mail for communications of this sort, in terms of both the time taken to reply and the cost involved. Unless such systems are implemented properly, however, they are worse than useless: e-mails are diverted all over the place, or disappear into the ether. Would the Minister consider commissioning work in his Department to bring together the various players in Departments, Parliament and so on, and to establish whether an efficient system of e-mail between Members and Ministers could be devised for Members who wish to communicate electronically?

Douglas Alexander: I know of the hon. Gentleman's expertise in this area. It is a matter of record that the House has considerably improved its facilities for electronic communications in recent years, which is all to the good, but I will give some thought to the hon. Gentleman's question and then write to him.

Tim Collins: Will the Cabinet Office undertake to publish a league table showing how rapidly Ministers respond to correspondence? Will it introduce sanctions so that the worst performing Ministers suffer some penalty, such as the loss of their exemption from the London congestion charge?

Douglas Alexander: That would seem a curious sanction indeed.
	The guidance is set by the Cabinet Office, and it is then for individual Departments to set responsive targets. The average Whitehall target is 15 working days. Clearly some Ministers and Departments could do significantly better. That is why, after the most recent Cabinet Office questions, I was keen to ensure that the matter was raised with the Cabinet Secretary, who in turn has raised it with individual Departments.

Lord Birt

Norman Baker: If he will list the subjects on which Lord Birt has advised the strategy unit in the last six months.

Douglas Alexander: Lord Birt was appointed by the Prime Minister as an unpaid adviser under paragraph 51 of the ministerial code. His role is to provide the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers with long-term internal strategic analysis and policy thinking.

Norman Baker: We need more freedom of information. I asked which subjects Lord Birt was advising on, but the Minister did not give me the answer to that question. Why is what Lord Birt is doing such a secret? Is it that embarrassing?

Douglas Alexander: I am well aware of the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the hon. Gentleman about this. I remind him that, in his letter to the hon. Gentleman dated 21 May 2002, the Prime Minister made it clear that Lord Birt provides private internal advice to the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers on a range of issues.

Mark Lazarowicz: Would my hon. Friend be prepared to ask Lord Birt to advise the strategy unit on Government policy on waste? As he knows, the unit recently suggested that the Cabinet Office should conduct a review of the current division of responsibility between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. If Lord Birt would not be the right person to conduct the review, could the Minister ask someone else to do it on behalf of the Government?

Douglas Alexander: Two distinct issues are inherent in that question, but I will certainly consider how we can best deal with the issues relating to waste.

Civil Service

Alan Whitehead: What plans he has to review whether the requirement that each civil service agency undergoes a quinquennial review of its public sector status should continue.

Douglas Alexander: The Government no longer require quinquennial reviews of executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies. Because our focus is on the effectiveness of delivery of public services rather than on individual structures, Departments are now being asked to look holistically at the contribution that agencies, NDPBs and others make to achieve their delivery objectives.

Alan Whitehead: Now that the agency system is mature, might this not be the time to review the whole basis on which agencies work, especially smaller agencies? Could the system be refined to match more closely the size and function of an agency, rather than the focus being on the undertaking of reviews?

Douglas Alexander: My hon. Friend will be aware that a joint review of agency policy was recently carried out by the Cabinet Office and the Treasury, and the report, "Better Government Services: Executive Agencies in the 21st Century"—copies are available in the Library—was published in July 2002. On my hon. Friend's specific point about the function of the reviews of agency work, I agree that the challenge is not solely to look at individual structures, but to ensure that the structures that are in place reflect the delivery objectives of the Department. That view is shared by the Cabinet Secretary, who, through his work on advancing performance partnerships, is undertaking significant work in this area.

Points of Order

Damian Green: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance about the confused messages coming out of the Department for Education and Skills today on university admissions. This morning, the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Higher Education, the hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), is reported to have said that she was going to set a specific target for the percentage of children from poorer backgrounds going to university. She is reported to have said:
	"I'm actually going to set a target—where we want to get to by 2010."
	Several hours later, however, after the intervention of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, she was quoted as saying that
	"an overall target would be inappropriate and we have no plans to introduce one."
	Given that, so far, we have had one message about university admissions from the Prime Minister, a different one from the Secretary of State and two different ones from the Minister with responsibility for higher education, has the Department for Education and Skills requested the chance to make a statement to the House this afternoon, so that we can clear up this terrible confusion on one of the key areas of education policy?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had a moment to look at the lead letter in The Times today, from Professor Sir Bernard Crick, the constitutional expert, in which he compares Ministers' respect for the House of Commons somewhat less than flatteringly with the Government of Lord North's? Against the background of your own repeated statements that Ministers making important announcements should come to the House of Commons first, have you been able to reflect on the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming not here, where he surely ought to be, but to Canary Wharf, to tell us that the costs of any war against Iraq will be met, whatever they are, or on the fact that the Evening Standard can refer to the prospect of a rise of 4p in the pound in income tax? If income tax is to rise by 4p in the pound, should not the House of Commons be told first, rather than the distinguished company at Canary Wharf?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, the Father of the House, applied for an urgent question today. I am rather worried that, when he is refused urgent questions, he tries to raise points of order on the same matters. That is what he is trying to do now. He sought an urgent question to try to bring the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the House, and I refused his request. I need not give any reason for doing so. It is quite improper that the hon. Gentleman should then raise a point of order and try to raise the matter in this way.

Welfare of Laying Hens (Enriched Cages)

Chris Mullin: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the keeping of laying hens in enriched cages.
	First, may I pay tribute to Compassion in World Farming, whose campaign has inspired this Bill? Secondly, may I say that the Government have done much to improve the welfare of farm animals? They led the way in securing the EU protocol, which gives animals a new legal status as sentient beings rather than agricultural products, as they were previously defined. They have banned fur farming and played a key role in winning an EU-wide ban on battery cages, which is due to come into force in 2012. I am aware that the Government are in the process of consulting on whether to ban enriched cages, and I hope that they will do so. The purpose of my Bill, which has all-party support, is to give Ministers a little prod in the right direction. I was hoping that there would be a Minister from the relevant Department here today, and I am sorry that there is not.
	I am sorry to say, however, that as things stand much of the egg industry plans to side-step the ban by going over to the cynically named enriched cages, which, sadly, have not been banned by the EU directive. An enriched cage will give hens just 150 cm—about the area of a postcard—more floor space than a conventional cage. It will contain the same number of hens—usually four—and provide a tiny nest box, a perch and litter for dust bathing, all of which will be woefully inadequate in the tiny space available. The hens will still be unable to turn or to flap their wings, and competition for the nest box is likely to lead to aggression. I defy anyone who has seen it to say that this represents a serious improvement in farm animal welfare.
	These so-called enriched cages are little more than glorified battery cages. They have nothing to do with humane egg production, and have been designed principally as a device for getting around the EU ban. They will enrich only the egg producers, not their wretched hens. The 2012 deadline for phasing out conventional cages is, by any standards, generous. Producers have ample time to prepare for it, and what they ought to be doing is investing in perchery or free range systems; indeed, the better egg producers are already doing so.
	There are, of course, those who argue that more expensive welfare systems in the EU will lead only to increased imports from countries where EU welfare standards do not apply. I understand this concern, but it need not be the case. Of course, the obvious solution would be for the EU, once its own cage ban comes into force, to ban the importing of cage-produced eggs from elsewhere. I am aware that both the Government and the EU make the pessimistic assumption that the rules of the World Trade Organisation do not allow restrictions on such imports. We should challenge this view. I note that the WTO recently ruled that an importing country may make it a condition of access to its markets that the exporting countries adopt policies of environmental protection comparable to its own. I also note that the EU, which bans cosmetic testing on animals, has recently decided that a ban on the sale of imported animal-tested cosmetics is consistent with WTO rules. I therefore see no reason why the same principle should not be extended to farm animal welfare, and I trust that Ministers will press for this.
	Whatever the position with the WTO, however, there are other steps that we can take to prevent welfare standards in our egg industry from being undermined by imports. Supermarkets should follow the example of Marks and Spencer and Waitrose in refusing to sell battery eggs, and fast food chains should do the same. Believe it or not, UK branches of McDonald's use only free range eggs. If McDonald's can adopt this principled position, so can other food chains and manufacturers. Where the market goes, industry will follow.
	In any case, the cost of change is often exaggerated. Industry figures show that barn eggs cost about 8.5p a dozen more to produce, and free range eggs about 18.5p a dozen more. Given that we consume about 180 eggs per person a year on average, this amounts to about tuppence a head per week for free range eggs, or 5p a head per week for barn eggs. That is not a high price to pay for rescuing hens from a lifetime of misery, or for injecting a little morality into factory farming.
	I repeat: these so-called enriched cages are a cynical device designed to undermine the little progress that we have already made towards mitigating the worst excesses of factory farming. Germany has already undertaken to ban them, and if Germany can do without them, so can we. I note that the egg industry is arguing that the Germans can afford to take this principled stand because their industry is migrating across the border into Poland. This overlooks the fact that by the time the ban comes into force in 2012, Poland will be well inside the EU, and the rules that apply to German egg farmers will also apply to Polish ones.
	I trust that Ministers will not fall for any of the special pleading coming from the egg industry. Instead of looking for ways round the ban, the industry should put its energy into ensuring that there is a level playing field and expanding the market for eggs that are humanely produced. If they were to do that, they would have the full support of the House and the public.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mullin, Ann Clwyd, Mr. Tony Banks, Sir Teddy Taylor, Bob Russell, Mr. Gwyn Prosser, Mr. John Horam, Sue Doughty, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Bill Etherington and Peter Bottomley.

Welfare of Laying Hens (Enriched Cages)

Mr. Mullin accordingly presented a Bill to prohibit the keeping of laying hens in enriched cages: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March, and to be printed [Bill 65].

POLICE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the programme order of 10th February in relation to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords] shall be amended by the substitution in paragraph 2 (conclusion of proceedings in standing committee) for "Tuesday 4th March" of "Thursday 6th March".—[Joan Ryan.]
	Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

Communications Bill
	 — 
	[2nd Allotted Day]

As amended in the Committee, further considered.

New Clause 23
	 — 
	Secretary of State Guarantees for OFCOM Borrowing

'(1) The Secretary of State may guarantee—
	(a) the repayment of the principal of any borrowing by OFCOM;
	(b) the payment of interest on any such borrowing; and
	(c) the discharge of other financial obligations incurred by OFCOM in connection with any such borrowing.
	(2) The power of the Secretary of State to give a guarantee under this section is a power (subject to subsection (3)) to give it in such manner and on such conditions as he thinks fit.
	(3) The Secretary of State must not give a guarantee under this section if the aggregate of—
	(a) the amounts that he may be required to pay for fulfilling that guarantee, and
	(b) the amounts that he may be required to pay for fulfilling other guarantees previously given under this section and still in force,
	exceeds £5 million.
	(4) The Secretary of State may by order substitute another amount for the amount for the time being specified in subsection (3).
	(5) No order is to be made containing provision authorised by subsection (4) unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
	(6) Immediately after a guarantee is given under this section, the Secretary of State must lay a statement of the guarantee before each House of Parliament.
	(7) Where any sum is paid by the Secretary of State under a guarantee given under this section, he must lay a statement relating to that sum before each House of Parliament as soon as practicable after the end of each of the financial years—
	(a) beginning with the one in which the sum is paid; and
	(b) ending with the one in which OFCOM's liabilities under subsection (8) in respect of that sum are finally discharged.
	(8) If sums are paid by the Secretary of State in fulfilment of a guarantee given under this section OFCOM must pay him—
	(a) such amounts in or towards the repayment to him of those sums as he may direct; and
	(b) interest, at such rates as he may determine, on amounts outstanding under this subsection.
	(9) Payments to the Secretary of State under subsection (8) must be made at such times and in such manner as he may determine.'.—[Mr. Timms.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Stephen Timms: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 25—Power of OFCOM to retain costs of carrying out spectrum functions.
	Government amendments Nos. 241 to 243, 256.

Stephen Timms: Clause 1(3) and (4) of the Bill will allow Ofcom to borrow money commercially. That will enable Ofcom to smooth out uneven cash flows that may arise as the result of the unevenness of receipts. New clause 23 will allow the Secretary of State to guarantee Ofcom borrowing to ensure that it is able to obtain the most advantageous terms.
	New clause 25 will enable Ofcom to retain out of its spectrum receipts an amount to cover the costs of carrying out its spectrum functions. Clause 390 of the Bill requires amounts received by Ofcom under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1998 to be paid to the appropriate consolidated fund. In practice, an administrative arrangement will allow the necessary amount to meet the costs of Ofcom carrying out its spectrum functions to be netted-off from those moneys and paid to Ofcom. Under the new arrangement proposed in new clause 25, Ofcom would make a statement of principles, which would be approved by the Treasury, setting out the basis on which it would calculate the costs of carrying out its spectrum functions and retain the necessary amounts accordingly. I hope that the House will welcome that.
	Amendment No. 243 requires that Ofcom should include in the account prepared under clause 390(4) the amount retained by it in accordance with any statement of principles it may make under new clause 25, and the cost to Ofcom of carrying out the functions to be covered by that retained amount. Amendments Nos. 241 and 242 are minor consequential amendments.
	As a result of the requirements of clause 390 that some of the amounts received by Ofcom should be paid to the consolidated fund, Ofcom will be unable to comply with the duty in paragraph 8(1) of the schedule to the Office of Communications Act 2002 to secure that its revenues are at least sufficient to meet its obligations. Amendment No. 256, therefore, amends paragraph 8(1) to require Ofcom to conduct its affairs so as to secure that revenues from fees and charges which do not fall to be paid to the consolidated fund are at least sufficient to cover the cost of carrying out the functions to which they relate.

John Greenway: We welcome the new clauses, although we should prefer new clause 25 to go further. If the new clauses are accepted, the Bill will have more than 400 clauses. I hope that the House will recognise that this afternoon's debate brings to an end a lengthy process. Some of us have been engaged in it for the best part of three months, but it has been a happy time. As we progress through the afternoon, we will discover the joy of Government amendments that put into effect changes that we advocated in Committee. That shows that the Committee debate was a constructive process. The past 24 hours has been quite good, as we have seen that all our work did not come to nothing. We are grateful to the Minister for that.
	However, if new clause 23 is relatively uncontroversial, new clause 25 addresses an issue that I raised with the Minister in Committee—the extent to which all the income payable to Ofcom could be used to defray some of the costs of its activities, instead of all of it being paid to the consolidated fund. I do not want to delay the House, as there is a lot of business to get through. However, the Minister will recall that I impressed on him my thought that, although I understand that Ofcom would not necessarily have an incentive to impose penalties if it could keep the money, it still seems a mistake for new clause 25(5) specifically to except the imposition of penalties and fines and some of Ofcom's enforcement powers.
	We still believe that a lot of activity will be involved in policing the provisions of the Bill and ensuring that Ofcom achieves proper enforcement. The cost of that will still fall on all the organisations that must pay fees and administration expenses to the regulator, as we discussed in Committee.
	Although there is not a complete meeting of minds between us on that matter, we are nonetheless grateful that the Government have accepted some of what we said. I hope that the Minister will recall the Opposition argument as the Bill progresses through the other place and when it receives Royal Assent. If I am right about it, we may need to return to the matter in the future.

Stephen Timms: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the happiness of the past three months. He is right that the House has before it a number of amendments that reflect the discussions that we had in Committee. They deal with matters raised by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, which is how the process should work.
	We debated in Committee the matter that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) raises, and I think that he will welcome the change proposed in new clause 25, as far as it goes. It means that the arrangement will be much more transparent, and that people will be able to see how payments are being used to fund the work that Ofcom needs to do. We disagreed about penalties, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman set out. I am satisfied that the proposals before the House today are the right ones, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's general welcome for the changes.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 24
	 — 
	Grants for Electronic Communications Networks and Services in Northern Ireland

'(1) The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment may, in accordance with this section, make payments to persons engaged in, or in commercial activities connected with—
	(a) the provision of electronic communications networks and electronic communications services in Northern Ireland; or
	(b) improving the extent, quality and reliability of such networks or services.
	(2) A payment shall not be made under this section unless in the opinion of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment—
	(a) the making of the payment is likely to achieve—
	(i) one or more of the purposes set out in subsection (1); and
	(ii) any other purposes prescribed by regulations made by that Department with the approval of the Department of Finance and Personnel; and
	(b) the amount of the payment is reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.
	(3) Payments under this section shall—
	(a) be of such amounts, and
	(b) be made subject to such conditions (including conditions as to repayment),
	as the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment may determine.
	(4) This section extends only to Northern Ireland.'.— [Mr. Timms.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Stephen Timms: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	New clause 24 grants discretion to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment—DETI—in Northern Ireland to fund expenditure on telecommunications infrastructure and for any other purposes prescribed by regulations made with the approval of the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland. Under the terms of the clause, DETI will have discretion to support financially the development of a regional telecommunications infrastructure, specifically in respect of the provision of electronic networks and services and improving the extent, quality and reliability of those networks or services. It will enlarge the legal framework for funding such expenditure in Northern Ireland. That is important because of DETI's role in developing a regional telecommunications infrastructure as an integral part of the Government's strategy for broadband, which is being led by my Department.
	The Bill already contains a provision, which has been carried over, in part, from the Telecommunications Act 1984, for district councils in Northern Ireland to contribute to the costs of infrastructure. The new clause confers broadly similar powers on DETI and I hope that the House will welcome it.

John Greenway: Northern Ireland Members have pressing matters to address and we wish them success, but I am sure that were they here today, they would want to welcome the new clause. It appears at least to signal an opportunity for the increased roll-out of broadband in Northern Ireland.
	When we debate new clause 2 a little later in our proceedings, I hope that we shall conclude that the Government's commitment to the roll-out of broadband in the rest of the United Kingdom will be undertaken with equal enthusiasm.

Richard Allan: I, too, welcome the new clause; it clearly makes sense for DETI to be given the powers to make such expenditure. Although I would not oppose that, I have some questions for the Minister, especially on the relationship of the provision to expenditure in the rest of the United Kingdom.
	The notes that the Minister kindly distributed to accompany the Government's many amendments and new clauses stated that the new clause was part of the DTI's broadband initiative. Can he flesh out how DETI's possible expenditure in Northern Ireland would relate to expenditure elsewhere? For example, is the anticipated DTI expenditure to be across England, Scotland and Wales, or is it to be broadly equivalent to the expenditure to promote broadband infrastructure made by the regional development agencies in England and their counterparts in Wales and Scotland?
	Can the Minister clarify whether there will be comparability throughout the United Kingdom? We are all interested in the promotion of broadband networks, so it would be helpful to know where the Government imagine that the expenditure will come from. The new clause makes it clear that in the case of Northern Ireland it will come from DETI, but questions remain about the Government's intentions for their expenditure of public money in the rest of the United Kingdom.
	Secondly, I want to raise concerns that have been expressed to me about Scottish Enterprise's investment and which may also apply to expenditure in Northern Ireland. Although we all welcome funding for broadband infrastructure from various regional and national bodies, it can have a distorting effect on the market. Concerns are being expressed by some service providers in Scotland that Scottish Enterprise's investment strategy is not ideal for creating the optimal market climate. Targeted investment of that sort can distort the market to the detriment of existing providers who could supply the services that people want without additional investment.
	I am fully supportive of regional investment, but I want to put down a marker that regional and national investment within the United Kingdom must be made with the full co-operation of existing providers and complete understanding of the market or it could be counterproductive. The Scottish example suggests that conditions are being created such that internet service providers based in London, because they are being encouraged to enter the Scottish market, could end up with more favourable conditions than internet service providers based in Edinburgh. I hope that our regional investment strategies will not create such anomalies.

Michael Fabricant: Northern Ireland is largely rural—rather like Scotland, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) pointed out. How will the provision affect rural areas of Northern Ireland? What consideration has the Minister given to the wireless and satellite provision of broadband? He will be aware of the excellent document produced by the Communication Workers Union, which shows that Britain is 20th in the world for the provision of broadband.
	I want to pursue the line of questioning taken by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam. Will there be a distortion in the market? Assuming that the problems of the provision of broadband in rural areas can be overcome, will we find that Northern Ireland becomes a Mecca for the application of broadband while the rest of the United Kingdom is far from being so? The Minister will be aware, from the many hours that we spent on this subject in Committee, that many of us are concerned not only that broadband is not yet available in rural areas in England but also that it is not available in suburban areas and even some urban areas. How will he ensure that there is no imbalance between various parts of the UK?

Chris Mole: Will the Minister comment on the fact that although we have the second highest growth rate in Europe for broadband, some locations are still struggling to make their case for broadband to service providers? Does he welcome initiatives such as that announced last week by the regional development agency for my area, the East of England Development Agency, of investment of about £5.8 million of its funds and Government funds to identify for network providers locations where broadband could be promoted? Of the two initiatives announced last week, one was in rural Diss, in Norfolk, and the other in urban Ipswich; both are good examples of the joint initiatives undertaken by the DTI and RDAs.

Stephen Timms: We have had a brief but interesting discussion on the roll-out of broadband and we shall come back to that subject in a later amendment.
	I accept the important points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) about the need for care in the use of public spending on telecommunications infrastructure. I am aware of the case in Scotland to which he referred. There are clear rules about state aid problems and it is essential to respect and comply with them. None of the proposals is in conflict with that.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a role for public participation in some circumstances. As I said earlier, local authorities can already contribute to the costs of telecommunications infrastructure. The new clause simply allows DETI to do so as well.
	It is becoming increasingly clear that such interventions are most helpfully made regionally. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) rightly drew attention to the work of the East of England Development Agency. Last week, I visited Birmingham and held similar discussions with Advantage West Midlands. A growing number of interesting initiatives are being taken by the RDAs, using, in part, the £30 million broadband fund provided for them by my Department. Such initiatives help to extend the availability of broadband services to businesses and residential users.
	The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) asked about wireless provision. Several of the EEDA initiatives involve wireless. In rural areas, there will be an increasing use of wireless to extend broadband rapidly to places where it has not yet been possible to upgrade the existing telecommunications infrastructure.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned satellite provision. SEEDA—the South East England Development Agency—has done some interesting work in subsidising small businesses, so that they can use satellite-based broadband services.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Lichfield in his statement of admiration for the Broadband Britain campaign, run by the Communication Workers Union. I was present at the launch of that campaign, and I very much welcome the contribution that it is making. Of course things are changing very rapidly. We reached only 1 million broadband connections last October; we are now past 1.5 million, and the number is increasing by in excess of 30,000 new connections a week. So we are certainly no longer in the position that we appeared to be in when the CWU document was published. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich suggested, we have now got the second biggest broadband network in Europe—after only the German network—so a great deal of progress has been made.

Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister take this opportunity to praise BT for reducing the threshold at which it will enable its exchanges when people have registered an interest in it? In many areas, but not all, the threshold has dropped from 650 to 350 people. However, will he use his particular powers of persuasion to ensure that the threshold is reduced to 350 people in all areas, not just some?

Stephen Timms: I very much welcome BT's announcement to reduce those thresholds. Of course, the level at which they are set is a commercial decision for BT. It should be recognised that the cable companies play an important part in extending access to broadband—they still have more than half the market, I believe—and there are about 200 resellers of BT services, so the industry is making a big effort, and I welcome the progress that has been made.
	The House generally welcomes the change for Northern Ireland in the new clause, but it is important to underline my agreement with the points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam about ensuring that such a route does not permit inappropriate state aid, and I assure the House that that will not occur.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 25
	 — 
	Power of Ofcom to Retain Costs of carrying out Spectrum Functions

'(1) OFCOM have power to make a statement of the principles under which they may retain any or all of the amounts paid to them in pursuance of obligations imposed by or under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1998 (c. 6).
	(2) Where such a statement of principles authorises the retention of an amount, OFCOM are not required to pay it into the appropriate Consolidated Fund in accordance with section 390.
	(3) Principles contained in a statement made by OFCOM under this section must be such as appear to them to be likely to secure, on the basis of such estimates of the likely costs as it is practicable to make—
	(a) that, on a year by year basis, the aggregate amount of the amounts retained by OFCOM does not exceed the amount required by OFCOM for meeting the annual cost to OFCOM of carrying out the functions mentioned in subsection (4);
	(b) that the amounts retained by OFCOM are objectively justifiable and proportionate to the costs in respect of which they are retained; and
	(c) that the relationship between meeting the cost of carrying out those functions and the amounts retained is transparent.
	(4) Those functions are—
	(a) OFCOM's functions under the enactments relating to the management of the radio spectrum except those specified in subsection (5); and
	(b) the function of taking any steps that OFCOM consider it necessary to take—
	(i) in preparation for the carrying out of any of the functions mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection; or
	(ii) for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out of those functions or otherwise in connection with carrying them out.
	(5) The excepted functions of OFCOM are—
	(a) their functions under section 19(2);
	(b) their functions under subsections (1) and (2) of section 147 so far as carried out in relation to the use of the electromagnetic spectrum at places outside the United Kingdom, and their functions under subsection (5) of that section;
	(c) their functions under section 150;
	(d) their functions under section 153;
	(e) their functions under section 163;
	(f) their functions under sections 170 to 172;
	(g) any functions conferred on them under section 5 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 (c. 54); and
	(h) any function not falling within the preceding paragraphs in so far as the costs of carrying it out are met from payments made to OFCOM by virtue of section 25 or 147(8) of this Act.
	(6) A statement under this section may include provision which, for the purposes of the principles contained in the statement and of the preparation of accounts in accordance with section 390(4), requires an amount actually received in one year—
	(a) to be treated as referable to costs incurred in that year and in one or more subsequent years; and
	(b) to be brought into account, in each of those years, in accordance with an apportionment for which provision is made in the statement.
	(7) A deficit or surplus shown (after applying this subsection for all previous years) by an account prepared under section 390(4) is to be carried forward and taken into account in determining what is required by OFCOM in relation to the following year for meeting the costs of carrying out the functions mentioned in subsection (4) of this section.
	(8) A statement of principles under this section—
	(a) if it is expressed to apply for a limited period, does not apply to any amounts paid to OFCOM after the end of that period; and
	(b) in any event, does not apply to amounts paid to them after a withdrawal of the statement takes effect.
	(9) OFCOM may revise a statement made under this section.
	(10) The consent of the Treasury is required for the making, revision or withdrawal of a statement under this section.
	(11) Where OFCOM make or revise a statement of this section they must publish so much of the statement or revised statement as appears to them necessary for demonstrating that the statement or revision complies with subsection (3).'.—[Mr. Timms.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	Deterrence of Piracy, Counterfeiting Etc.

'OFCOM may, if they think fit, undertake discussions with, and seek agreement from, broadcasters, producers, service providers and telecommunications companies, in order to assist the deterrence of piracy, counterfeiting and the unauthorised digital transference of moving image material; including in such discussions the promotion of common technical standards in order to facilitate deterrence, prevention, and detection.'.— [Mr. Chris Smith.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Chris Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	At the outset, I remind the House of my declaration in the Register of Members' Interests—I am an adviser to Disney. However, this issue spreads much wider than a single company; it concerns the serious and growing problem of the dangers of piracy, counterfeiting, illegal copying and downloading across the internet of audio-visual material. That is already widespread in relation to music, and the music industry has suffered grievously.
	The music industry is extremely important to this country. Our share of music production across the globe is about 16 per cent., and the threat to the music content industry from the illegal downloading of material is serious indeed. A recent poll in the United States found that 62 per cent. of the 18 to 29 age group—nearly two thirds of everyone in that age group—had copied or downloaded music or movies across the internet, and three quarters of those knew that it was illegal when they did so. That shows the extent of the problem that exists in relation to music.
	Equipment capable of burning pirated material permanently on to CDs is readily on sale. Of course, that is possible in a narrowband environment with music. However, we are moving into a broadband environment, the development of which makes it possible to download not just music, but moving image material across the internet. Indeed, equipment now available in the shops enables pirated moving image material to be burned permanently into DVD form.
	It may be instructive to consider what happened last year. In May 2002, "Spider-Man" and "Star Wars: Episode II" were released in the United States. Within seven days of those movies being released, 9 million attempts were made to download them across the internet from pirated copies that had been recorded at pre-release screenings. It is estimated that probably only about 2 million or 3 million of those 9 million attempts were successful in completely downloading the entire movie because in many cases the technology was not sufficiently sophisticated to enable that to happen, but that indicates the extent of the problem, the desire to download illegally and, as technology improves, the possible threat, particularly to the content industries.

Simon Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman makes a persuasive case about the amount of illegal material available on the web. However, during debates on the Bill in Committee and on Report, hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly the Government, have made it clear how little control Ofcom will have over the internet. It is not a regulatory body for the internet, which will remain unregulated on the whole. How will the new clause, or any work by Ofcom, tackle that problem, as it involves the expression of free will through a medium with which we cannot interfere?

Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman is running ahead of me; I shall come to precisely that point in a moment. I am arguing not for control over the internet by Ofcom or anyone else, but for the ability of Ofcom to draw together all parts of the industry—both the content and the servicing industries—to identify technological solutions to the problem, but I will come to that point in just a moment.
	Of course, the content industries suffer particularly from the illegal downloading of material. The obvious point to make is that, if material can be obtained for free across the internet, people are unlikely to pay for it, so less remuneration goes back into providing the content and it is much more difficult to provide content in the first place in the future.

Richard Allan: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concerns for the industry—I hope to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and to speak at length on the issue later—but it is helpful to say as we are talking about movies that cinemas are doing better than ever and more money is coming into the contents sector than ever. Yes, people are ripping off stuff by downloading it, but we should not pretend that that is the death of the movie industry quite yet.

Chris Smith: The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is valid at the moment. The problem is that the technology is in an embryonic state at present. It is still quite difficult to download an entire movie across the internet, but that will not be so for all time, especially as broadband becomes much more readily available throughout the country, as we all hope it will. The ability to download moving image material, not just music and speech, will grow. The hon. Gentleman is right as far as things stand at the moment, but considerable potential exists for the problem to grow much more than it has done up to now.

John Bercow: I am anxious to establish whether the right hon. Gentleman believes that his proposal is merely necessary, or whether he judges that it is also sufficient. In the light of the concern that he has expressed, and the evolution of technology, does he think that his concerns will be adequately allayed by the passage of new clause 1, or does he believe that the scale of the problem will in due course necessitate an overhaul of copyright design and patent law?

Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the European copyright directive is on the table at the moment, and the Minister's Department is actively engaged in developing the legislation that will come before the House in due course about the implementation of that directive. These issues, particularly in the digital environment, are absolutely germane to that work on the development of copyright legislation. My new clause is by no means an entirely sufficient answer to the problem; it is an attempt to raise the issue and to develop some mechanisms for drawing together a cross-industry approach to try to find some answers. I doubt whether we will ever address the issue 100 per cent. If we can move towards that point, however, I will be much happier.
	The new clause does not require Ofcom to do anything; it enables Ofcom. If Ofcom, in its judgment of the overall nature of television and film in this country and across the world, decides that it wants to act, under the new clause, it can. Nor does the new clause seek to enable Ofcom to impose anything on any parts of the industry: the telecoms companies, the content providers or any of the service providers. What it enables Ofcom to do is to draw all those parties together into a discussion, and, I hope, into a voluntary agreement to examine what technological standards can be introduced to try to make piracy more difficult. Although technology facilitates the activity, it also provides some of the answers to the problem, through digital signatures, watermarks, tracing the digital origin of material and so on. Those are examples of how technology can come to our assistance in combating piracy, counterfeiting and illegal downloading. To make that possible, we need common standards to be agreed across the industry as a whole. My new clause seeks to enable Ofcom to encourage that to happen.

John Robertson: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful argument. What would he do about companies that, in effect, make and sell the DVDs and music CDs, but also make the equipment that allows copying to be done? How do we combat that?

Chris Smith: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. A number of companies are both equipment manufacturers and content providers. I do not think that we can prohibit the manufacture of particular types of equipment. What we can do, however, is remind companies of their responsibilities in this matter. I hope that some of them will listen carefully to what my hon. Friend says.

Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for tabling the new clause, which is very important, especially as technology changes. Does he think that all this is a question of hoping to have an effect? Is not the new clause an example of wish over practical application? Does not he think that it is rather wishy-washy? Does he really think that it will change anything?

Chris Smith: I absolutely think that it has the potential to change things. I do not believe that we bring about change on every occasion by legislating to prohibit or require something. We can bring about change by legislating to encourage things to happen, which is precisely what the new clause seeks to do.

John Bercow: A very Conservative position.

Chris Smith: In response to the sedentary intervention of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), that is not simply the preserve of Conservatism. 1.15 pm

Pete Wishart: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on from this point, I want to congratulate him on trying to find a technological solution to the problems of counterfeiting and piracy. I suggest to him that that is a long way from coming, and we will need to go a big distance before it is achieved. Does he have any comments about the general cultural environment in which many young people do not regard this activity as a crime and are happy to be involved in it? Does he think that we must tackle that type of culture, too?

Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is a particular problem with the younger age groups, among whom this activity is regarded as an entirely natural phenomenon, even though, as I mentioned, many of them are aware that it is illegal. It is regarded in a way that is similar to the way that some people regard speeding on a motorway: they know that they should not do it, but they do it none the less. It is absolutely essential to change the culture and to get across the message that this is not a pain-free exercise and that doing it to too great an extent will kill the goose that produces the eggs in the first place. I hope that Ofcom and others can play a role in helping to change the culture in the way that the hon. Gentleman has described.
	In proposing this new clause, I am seeking to put down a marker or two and I hope that the Government will accept that this serious issue requires a serious approach. We want as much broadband as possible, as rapidly as possible, in this country, but also want our creative industries, particularly the music and moving image industries, to thrive as they have done in the past and can do in the future. This country is very good at those industries, and long may that remain the case. To put those two things together, we need to achieve the best possible technological answers to ensure that those things can happen legitimately and that the digital reception of moving image material can be properly and legitimately done, rather than illegally done through piracy and counterfeiting.
	I want the digital environment and the advent of broadband to be an opportunity for the content and creative industries, not a threat. To turn it into an opportunity, we need to make sure that structures and standards are in place to ensure that that can happen. Ofcom can play a role in making sure that that occurs. The new clause seeks to enable Ofcom to play precisely such a role.

John Whittingdale: I start by welcoming the overall thrust of new clause 1, which was moved by the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). We sought to raise this issue several times in Committee. I moved an amendment to clause 3, on the general duties of Ofcom, the intention of which was not vastly dissimilar to that of the new clause. At that time, I expressed some reservations about Ofcom deciding the direction of technological development. I was glad, therefore, to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that his aim is not to allow Ofcom to impose a standard on the industry or decide between competing technologies. That would not be an appropriate role for Ofcom.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the scale of the problem will have to be made clear to Ofcom. Piracy and illegal copying are not new developments—they have been going on for a long time. Nearly 20 years ago, I was a special adviser in the Minister's Department. At that time, we wondered whether a levy should be imposed on blank tapes in recognition of the fact that the vast majority of them were being purchased to record music off the radio or off vinyl albums; almost all those purchases probably breached copyright. The industry accepted that the practice could not be stopped and a second-best solution was offered—a levy on tapes that would be redistributed to the music industry as compensation for lost sales.
	One of the limitations of copying on to blank tapes was that the quality of reproduction was not especially good. In addition, people had to buy an album before copying it. Since that time, there have been a succession of technological developments: the replacement of vinyl albums with compact discs of almost perfect quality; recordable CDs; DVDs; recordable DVDs; movies and music being made available on a massive scale through the internet; and MP3 players, which allow one to take music off the internet quickly and to keep it in a convenient format so that it can be reproduced at almost the original quality. All those developments are a huge threat to the music industry. In due course, they will be a threat to the movie industry, too.
	In the past we have wrestled with the problem of illegal copying—piracy—by factories that produce counterfeit CDs in China or other countries. The CDs are then brought to this country and sold in car boot sales and elsewhere. That remains a huge problem.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman may know that the copyright directive, in its post-negotiated form, allows for different countries in the European Union to resolve this issue in different ways—in particular, in respect of video and cassette tapes. The directive allows countries to enforce a levy on blank tapes, but it also says that the levy may be a levy of nothing, because the British Government have insisted that we should maintain the system that allows individuals to copy for their own private use so as to time-shift. When the directive is eventually incorporated into United Kingdom law, would the hon. Gentleman wish us to abandon that tradition or to maintain it?

John Whittingdale: We have moved a long way from the issue of copying on to blank tapes, which is no longer the main problem. I have always regarded the levy as very much a second-best solution. In respect of the current problem, I do not think that a levy is necessarily the solution, and I want to pick up on some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury on what could provide a solution.
	In the previous Session, the House passed a Bill on copyright theft to strengthen the penalties available to tackle illegal copying. All parties supported its passage, but the problem now is finding the resources to enforce it. Local authorities do not necessarily pay enough attention to enforcing the legislation. The industry has raised that matter with the Minister's Department and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which may have to get together to come up with a more co-ordinated approach.
	The problem has changed from being one of mass reproduction of discs, in factories outside this country, which are imported and sold in car boot sales. The problem is now much more serious, because it goes on in children's bedrooms. Technology now allows young people, in particular, to burn CDs. They do not even have to purchase CDs in the first place; they can download music from the internet using peer-to-peer file sharing programs. That is a quick and simple procedure and it achieves a very high quality.
	The root of the problem, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, is the attitude of young people to the practice. He quoted a survey that shows that a majority of young people are now downloading and copying music and movies, and that the fact that they are in breach of the law does not stop them from doing it. Part of the problem has been the perception that taking music is somehow a right and that the only people who lose out are the big, fat record companies, which can well afford it. To some extent, that perception has grown because of the view that CDs have been priced higher in this country than elsewhere and the view that the record industry has been exploiting consumers. I have never believed that to be true. All the investigations that the Office of Fair Trading and others have conducted have shown that it is not true. However, even if that case was once arguable, it is no longer arguable. The record industry is on its back and one of the main reasons for that is the practice of copying. The really frightening thing is that the situation will get worse.
	The right hon. Gentleman referred to an American survey. I understand that the survey concluded that it may now be impossible to save the music industry and that we may have to concentrate instead on trying to protect the film industry, which will be the next to suffer. In some countries, the number of blank CDs sold now exceeds the number of pre-recorded CDs sold. Even in this country, recent figures show that 308 million blank recordable CDs were sold in Britain. The industry estimates that about 128 million of those CDs were used to copy music rather than computer programs—although copying computer programs is not necessarily any better. The figures show the scale of the problem.

John Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman suggest some answers to the question that I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) about companies that not only make the music and CDs but make recordable CDs and the recording equipment? What should we do with those companies?

John Whittingdale: Sony is probably the best example of a company in that position, and a question does arise about the responsibilities of manufacturers. When DVDs were first launched, regional encryption was used to protect copyright. The intention was that we in this country would purchase region 2 DVDs, and that if we purchased a DVD in the United States it could not be played on equipment purchased in this country. However, Dixons on Victoria street stocks multi-region DVDs—they are everywhere. Manufacturers have produced multi-region DVDs that are designed, I presume, to overcome the protection that the copyright owner has installed.

Chris Bryant: Someone who perfectly legitimately buys a copy of "The Two Towers" in the United States should have a perfect right to watch it in this country. The attempts to foil the interests of consumers are crazy.

John Whittingdale: I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point. I was about to say that the technological solution will always fail. Attempts to counter the problem by trying to build in technological safeguards merely provide a challenge to the hackers and those who seek to get round the safeguards. They will always win. That has happened in a number of cases recently. For example, a court in Norway dealt with the case of someone who was 15 when he developed a computer program to overcome the technology in DVDs that prevents copying. He was taken to court by the copyright owner, but the court upheld his right to do what he wanted with the DVD. That included copying it.

Richard Allan: For the sake of accuracy, may I make it clear that the person accused in Norway had written the computer program to be able to play his legitimately purchased DVDs on the Linux and not the Windows operating system. That is why the court found in his favour. There was no suggestion that he was copying for resale or anything like that. He merely wanted to watch his DVDs and was smart enough to find a way of doing that.

John Whittingdale: As I understand it, however, the problem was that he made available on the internet the program that he had developed. It was then downloaded by millions of other people who used it not to watch DVDs on a different operating system but to crack the safeguards built into DVDs. That enabled them to copy them, which demonstrates the limitations of technology. Each time that someone develops a new method of trying to safeguard copyright through technology, someone else will find a way round it.
	A couple of months ago, I read that the record companies in this country were developing something called Cactus data shield to try to prevent the copying of CDs. That gives rise to the question that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) asked. Once people have made a purchase, should they not be allowed to make a copy? I suspect that it will not be long before someone overcomes this technological constraint and finds a way of making copies.
	The problem will get worse. At present, one at least has to have an original that has been purchased before one can copy it. The real danger, however, comes from the internet. At present, the copying of music is relatively simple using the normal broadband access that is available in parts of the country if not in others. We shall deal with that issue in the next debate. Even broadband is not capable of providing high-quality movie reproduction, but it is only a matter of time before it will be able to do that.
	I visited Dolphin house, which is wired by ntl. It offers much faster access than conventional ADSL technology, and I believe that 2 or 3 megabytes a second are on offer. It is possible to log on to a site that streams DVD quality movies down the fibre direct on to the screen. It would obviously be very simple just to record that, and that constitutes the same threat to the movie industry that is currently destroying the music industry. If the practice of logging in free to sites that offer movies becomes widespread, and if those movies can be downloaded rapidly and simply on to a recordable DVD in a bedroom or an office, that will pose real dangers to the movie industry.

Michael Fabricant: I have been following my hon. Friend's remarks with interest. Does he not realise that even now there is a danger resulting from the digital terrestrial and satellite transmission of movies and from digital audio broadcasting? In theory, there is nothing to prevent someone from burning a DVD of something taken off air with digital quality.

John Whittingdale: That is perfectly true. To some extent, it is a question of the desirability of the films involved. The right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred to "Spider-Man" and "Star Wars: Episode II" and it will be some time before they become available on television. Part of the attraction is having a copy on DVD before one's friends have even had a chance to see the film in the cinema. My hon. Friend is right about the threat.
	The new clause tabled by the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is welcome in that, if nothing else, it allows us to talk about issues that are of huge importance to the industries concerned. I very much hope that Ofcom will at least be aware and take account of these issues in all its consideration of the development of technology and in its regulation of the communications sector in general. However, if an answer exists, I suspect that it does not lie in regulation by Ofcom. I do not think that it even lies in the technological solutions that we have been discussing.
	If there is a solution, it is that of the industry exploiting the internet and viewing it as a new opportunity to make material available. It should try to persuade people to purchase products from internet sites rather than accessing them illegally and downloading material without any payment being given to the copyright owner. The way to do that is by providing added value. The music industry is now examining ways of making music available with all sorts of additional bonuses that come with its purchase from an internet site. The same approach could be adopted by the movie industry.
	I have seen research from America that shows that a variety of additional items could be attached to the purchase. For example, additional material can be provided about the making of the product or concessions could be offered on theatre tickets. A variety of bonuses and attractions could be provided and they might persuade people that, rather than break the law and deprive copyright owners, artists and performers of the money to which they are entitled, they should go to a legitimate site that makes available the same product for a small payment. That is a market-based solution and the only long-term solution.
	I do not decry the attempts of the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury to raise this issue and to get Ofcom to take account of it. I support those attempts, but the new clause will not solve a problem that will increase in the coming months and years. I suspect that the only answer is for the industry to adapt and to try to use the market opportunities in the way that I have suggested. If it does not do that, its future looks very bleak.

Chris Bryant: I, too, am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has tabled the new clause, but I am hesitant about supporting it. I am broadly sympathetic to the thrust of the issues that he has raised in relation to piracy and counterfeiting. It must be a major concern to any right-thinking person that acts of theft occur on a daily basis as the result of organised crime. My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting has been on a number of busts with the police and other organisations in the past three months, and he has tried to point out that the buying of CDs that have been manufactured deliberately to get round the copyright law is clearly wrong and immoral. However, I do not share the apocalyptic version of the future with which my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) have presented us.
	In the debate about piracy, we all too easily forget the role of consumers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) pointed out, consumers are bombarded with two messages by the same companies. The first is "Come and buy our wonderful technology, which enables you to tape pieces of music from other sources and put them on to your own CD." The second is that they are engaged in an act of piracy that is wholly illegal and immoral. That presents a difficult problem for consumers. The marketing of some organisations has been downright hypocritical. In fact, when I worked for the BBC in Brussels and I was engaged at some length on the copyright directive, it was almost impossible to find a music or film industry company that was not in some way tied to a business that manufactured some kind of copying machinery or technology.

Pete Wishart: Can the hon. Gentleman not make a distinction between the young person sitting in his bedroom making a copy of a CD for his own use and the mass production of illegally counterfeited and copied products that one sees in marketplaces around the UK?

Chris Bryant: I am sorry that I am not making myself plain enough, as that is indeed the distinction that I want to draw. It is sometimes not drawn sufficiently clearly in the debate about piracy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred to the 62 per cent. of young people who think that it is perfectly legitimate to download music from the internet without payment. Probably 95 per cent. of the people with whom I was at school at the age of 18 copied "Top of the Pops" on to a cassette on a Sunday evening so that they could listen to it at various times during the week. I see hon. Members around the Chamber nodding, including Conservative Members and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan)—who as I can remember his constituency will get into Hansard for having engaged in that illegal activity.
	There is a real onus on the manufacturers, the record industry and the cinema industry to provide a new revenue stream of their own. It is simply inaccurate to say that a digital copy is a perfect copy, as there are many different qualities of digital copy. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said that the cinema is nevertheless doing well at the moment, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said yes, but that will not be the case in future. I suspect that the cinema will continue to flourish owing to the simple fact that often people go to the cinema not only to see a new film, although that is part of it, but because they have a completely different experience as part of an audience in front of a large screen with digital stereo.

Chris Smith: My hon. Friend is right that it is likely that people will still want to have a night out in front of a big screen at the cinema. All the evidence of the past 20 years, especially at the time when video technology was developing, confirms that, and I would not argue against it. However, he should bear in mind that the technological ability to download movies will rapidly increase, and we shall have to take that into account.

Chris Bryant: My right hon. Friend is right. I only wish that the capacity to download into the Rhondda valley was available rather swifter, as we seem to have no prospect of broadband technology for some years to come—2007 is the most likely date at the moment. I worry that we are perpetuating a gap between the information rich and the information poor.
	Be that as it may, one of my concerns is this: when I was first elected, one of the first things that I did was to ask the Department of Trade and Industry when the copyright directive would be incorporated into UK law. I was originally told that it would be last March, then last July, then definitely by the end of the year—and it is still not quite ready. Major issues need to be resolved if we are to achieve the balance between the rights of the consumer and the individual and the rights of the industry, including the need for competition and for a strong music and cinema industry.
	Some of the issues are recondite, but must none the less be swiftly addressed if we are to stand any chance of halting piracy. They include embedded phonograms, the time-shifting of recordings, and incidental reproductions in the many processes that are involved inside a computer of material that would otherwise be seen as copyright. The many exemptions from copyright that exist in this country—for the blind, for the hard of hearing, for libraries, and for many other public interest reasons—are still important, and we need to get the balance right. That is why the new clause is wrong and, furthermore, relates to the wrong part of the Bill. I simply do not believe that handing over such a power to Ofcom would be the right means of ensuring that there is a proper debate about piracy, that we properly strike the balance between the needs of consumers and the needs of industry— 1.45 pm

Chris Smith: If my hon. Friend does not think that Ofcom is the right place, where is?

Chris Bryant: My right hon. Friend pre-empts me, and I know that he is not in favour of pre-emption. I would merely say that the Patent Office, which historically has responded only to complaints and to changes in the law, should have a proactive role, and it is undoubtedly where the power should remain. Of course, different elements of the law are implemented in different ways. The private Member's Bill introduced last year by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) would have ensured that certain aspects of the matter were dealt with much more robustly. That is why I do not support the new clause.

Richard Allan: I find myself very much in sympathy with the comments made by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale). I remember that a famous battle of Maldon was fought a couple of millennia ago. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not think that hardware copyright protection was the right way forward. It is in that spirit that I rise to speak, because I am concerned that the thrust of the new clause is in that direction—a direction that has been very much advanced in the United States through measures such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 and which is causing huge controversy between people in the industry. That is particularly true in relation to the internet, where people in Europe and in the US often represent different points of view.
	We discussed "Top of the Pops" in Committee, and it was bound to raise its head on repeated occasions. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) for giving us another chance to talk about it. Yes, I freely confess that I was a "Top of the Pops" taper in my youth. [Interruption.] I am asked whether I drank R. White's lemonade. I was not such a slave to advertising.
	Taping represented a system of "try before you buy". The important shift that has occurred in the music context is that the trying is taking place but the buying no longer necessarily does so. In the 1970s we would tape "Top of the Pops", and if there were a couple of songs we liked, we went out and bought them. We bought the vinyl because we liked having the record sleeve to touch—that is the added value that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford talked about. We have not yet developed a comparable system in the digital world. The problem arises in trying simply to transfer what was done in the analogue world to the digital world. That is why I am sceptical about hardware protection. In the analogue world, one controlled the physical media—vinyl, compact disc or whatever—and had some way of policing them. In the digital world, there are no physical media to control. That creates a raft of problems, and the question is how to address them, not whether they need to be addressed.
	There is a particular problem in the audio and music business in that the material can be shifted around and no comparable legitimate channel has yet been established. That is a specific market problem. The industry maintains as its primary distribution channel the traditional retail system whereby CDs cost in the range of £10 to £15, but those prices will not stand in the digital world. It is hard to maintain a system under which, effectively, one has two price ranges for the same material—one of £10 to £15 and another that perhaps reflects the real costs of distribution over the digital system, whereby the record company and the artist can still get the same amount of money, but have transferred the costs to the end consumer and taken out the distribution costs, so that the product sells more in the £3 to £5 range. It is therefore essential to develop that second digital distribution channel.

Chris Mole: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to shift from the ownership of a particular item of music to micro-billing or micro-payment for the rental of an item on demand, be it a video or music track? The challenge is that video-on-demand trials have not competed economically with the comparable physical space model, the video hire shop. Perhaps he would agree that when a video arrives in broadband form for the first time in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant), it should be called "A Fish Called Rhondda".

Richard Allan: I will not follow up that last point.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Richard Allan: No doubt the hon. Gentleman is about to say that he has never heard that one before.
	Different competing models may be successful, and I think we agree on the objectives of finding a successful model.

Chris Bryant: I just want to say that a fish and chip shop in my constituency is called "A Fish Called Rhondda".

Richard Allan: I am pleased to hear that.
	The hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Mole) makes an important point about different competing models. One is the micro-payment at time-of-use model by which the customer pays by usage rather than for obtaining copyright material. I do not think that that is likely to work. The more effective model is to make a reasonable payment to obtain fair use, which is the traditional method. People could then do whatever time, format and space shifting—those are the technical terms—they wanted with the material. For example, they might have an iPod device or a computer for listening to MP3s. That approach is more likely to succeed than micro-payment at the time of use.

Pete Wishart: Surely the problem is lack of regulation of the internet. Records and movies will still be available for free if people place them on the internet. Until we have effective regulation that benefits the companies involved, such ideas and projects will fail.

Richard Allan: The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the internet. The valid point has been made that by encouraging broadband access we are creating the conditions in which even more piracy can occur. If the Government succeed in meeting their target of millions of broadband users, they will create millions of potential piraters. Who would be liable for that? I fear that the new clause would steer us on the route of making internet service providers responsible for content. I am not convinced that that is right. I would be loth to tell an internet service provider that, as part of its licence condition, it must implement a particular hardware or software copyright protection, just as I would not want the Royal Mail to be prosecuted if people used it to send dodgy pirated videos. In general, the Bill establishes that internet service providers are more like the Royal Mail than a publisher, and that is the correct approach.
	The people who should be prosecuted are those who put up the sites. We should go after the publishers of the material, and we can do that under current law. As someone who enjoys music and film, I find it offensive to see people with dodgy videos at car boot sales and people on the street with dodgy CDs. I want to crack down on them. The same is true of abuses of the internet. There is a debate on whether such controls should be extended to other jurisdictions. Certainly, the EU should have a common framework as part of the copyright directive. However, if people are malicious or stupid enough to have a site that says, "Come and get illegal pirated material here", and they have a locus in our jurisdiction, we should go after them under the general law. I do not think that the best way to deal with the problem is to create specific internet law because the legal provisions already exist.

John Whittingdale: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the use of notice and take down is one of the most effective means to date of dealing with the problem? Under that approach, ISPs are made aware that materials are being downloaded from their servers which are in breach of copyright on a large scale. They then have to take some responsibility by removing the site that is making such material available illegally.

Richard Allan: Absolutely, and more work could be done on that. There are specific issues for internet service providers, which have a legal responsibility in both directions. The problem is more than a breach of copyright material; it also involves libellous material. ISPs do not want people to use their services to publish such things, but they have a contract with the publisher and do not want to be sued for removing material.
	The internet industry is rightly asking for greater legal certainty when it gets a request for notice and take down from a member of the music or film industry who thinks that material is illegal. The industry wants that to happen in a sensible, consistent and standardised way so that it does not get requests from every Tom, Dick or Harry. It also wants to be sure that when it responds, its position is governed by legal certainty so that it is not exposed to action by its customers. We could make considerable advances on that and allow something positive to come out of the debate. Improving the notice and take down procedures on copyright material would be welcomed by all the industries concerned. I do not know anyone in the internet industry who is keen to see their mechanisms abused in that way. They want them to be used sensibly, responsibly and legitimately.
	As hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have said, I hope that we can create a proper market for digital material in which artists and record companies receive fair recompense. By introducing over-elaborate physical protection measures for software or hardware, we may accidentally create a bigger incentive for people to go into the illegitimate market. If people cannot have fair use of their legitimately bought material, they will go for the illegitimate material that they can move between different devices.
	I hope that we find a sensible approach. The debate is important in the context of Ofcom because the people whom it will regulate are creating the infrastructure over which the material will move. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford that Ofcom does not have a specific role for dictating what material is transmitted across the internet.

Michael Fabricant: This is one of the rare occasions on which my opinion has been swayed by the debate. Although I welcomed the new clause, I was not keen to include it in the Bill. I now think that it should be included, although I hold by the original view that I expressed when I intervened on the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). The new clause is wishy-washy. Nevertheless, the problem needs to be addressed.
	Cable and ADSL are delivering broadband at about 1.5 megabytes per second. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) mentioned the Dolphin Square experiment, which is delivering broadband at between 2 and 2.5 megabytes per second. I have no doubt that in years to come we will be discussing the delivery of 5 to 6 megabytes per second. At that speed, it would be the same as digital terrestrial and digital satellite television, which makes even more prescient the point made by the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.
	People will be able to download entire film productions from the internet. There are grave dangers in trying to define a standard that would provide a block to that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford said, 15-year-old hackers will always be able to work out a way to break through that block. The other problem is that the internet allows material to be originated anywhere in the world. We need international agreement because we will have a problem if an internet site originates in, say, the West Indies, where gambling sites are based, or China. The right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was right to raise the problem. Although people may prefer to go to the cinema, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) pointed out, there will be a disincentive to creativity if people believe that they cannot maximise their return because their copyright can be breached by individuals downloading their material.

Chris Bryant: We are talking about restructuring the business model used by the audiovisual industry, particularly film and music. One of the expectations inherent in the decision to invest in broadband technology throughout the country is that consumers will spend significantly larger sums, perhaps £50, £60 or £70 a month, on audiovisual services. Is not the important thing to make sure that the money that is going to cable and other forms of digital television is getting through to the creators?

Michael Fabricant: Yes, but it is important that the provision of such audiovisual services should involve a legally or morally binding provision. There was a debate in the Chamber way back in 1900 or 1910 about the provision of books to libraries. Members debated the question of whether authors should benefit from the availability of their books in libraries. Of course they should—if everyone read books from libraries and did not buy them there would be no incentive for creativity—there would be no incentive for authors to write or publish books, unless they simply wanted the gratification of seeing their name in print. Thinking about it, that probably satisfies the desires of most authors but, nevertheless, many of them want some income from their work as well.
	I maintain that the issue has to be addressed. I was amused when the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury asked, "If Ofcom is not going to assume that responsibility, who is?" That is a good point. Ofcom, whose functions are defined in the Bill, is the ideal organisation to try to produce standards to ensure that digital piracy does not occur. It is all very well for Ofcom to perform that role, but I must enter a great caveat: if it does so in isolation, it will be pointless, as worldwide agreement is needed—[Laughter.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Rhondda is laughing from a sedentary position, if that is possible. If someone does not take the first step, there will not be worldwide agreement, so Ofcom should assume that role.

Chris Bryant: One can, indeed, laugh from a sedentary position.
	One problem with the new clause as currently worded is that it is an enabling power that Ofcom may choose not to use. Historically, there has been phenomenal difficulty in getting the organisations listed in the new clause to co-operate and work together. Without a robust power and a duty, Ofcom would not stand a chance of getting anywhere. If the international community has to agree as well, that is cloud cuckoo land legislation.

Michael Fabricant: By saying that such legislation is wishy-washy, the hon. Gentleman amplifies the point that I made in an earlier intervention, but someone has to start somewhere. Of course, he is right. He alluded in his speech to the fact that organisations such as Sony produce movies and music on the one hand and the very equipment that can be used to cut DVDs and CDs on the other. I accept that there is a problem but I repeat that someone has to start somewhere. No doubt, there are organisations similar to Ofcom, such as the Federal Communications Commission in the United States, but Britain ought to have a role too.

Chris Mole: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. One reason why these technologies have become more pervasive is that they are the by-product of worldwide standards groups such as the Moving Picture Experts Group which defines the MPEG standard behind the DVD format and the MP3 music format.

Michael Fabricant: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
	Going back to the intervention of the hon. Member for Rhondda, of course standards have to be established by the G7 and, beyond that, the World Trade Organisation. The fact that China has joined the WTO is a major achievement, because it was one of the main producers of illegal CDs and DVDs. Some Members may argue, even from the Front Bench, that that is still going on. We do not know whether that is so, but now that China is part of the WTO, at least there is a disincentive against such production and an incentive to obey international copyright law. However, international standards are needed. It is remarkable to hear that there is a peculiar system in which there are regional DVDs. One of the problems with analogue television is that there are different standards. There is SECAM in France—I do not know what that stands for, but many people think that it is "Contrary to the American method". In the United States, there is NTSC, which many people think stands for "Never twice the same colour". In Britain, we have PAL—peace at last. There are different standards. It only costs £190 to go to New York city and buy from Tower Records a DVD that one may not be able to play in the United Kingdom, not because the technology is not standardised but because people have deliberately made a system that is not compatible with other systems.
	The problem needs to be addressed, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury on tabling the new clause. I am persuaded that, if not in its present form, such a provision ought to be included in the Bill. If the Minister resists its introduction, I hope that a similar provision will be included when the Bill is considered in another place.

Chris Mole: rose—

Michael Fabricant: Before I conclude, I will be generous and give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Chris Mole: The irony of multi-region DVDs is that most manufacturers will sell a multi-regional DVD player in this country because there was a massive market in pirated software to replace the firmware in DVD players to enable people to play DVDs from other regions.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Where there is a will, there is a way, and where there is a 15-year-old hacker, he will hack through it.

Stephen Timms: We have had an interesting discussion. The Government certainly believe that copyright theft over the internet is a serious issue for many rights holders. It is essential that those who invest in creative activity can gain a fair reward from their work, whether in movies and music, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, or in other parts of the publishing industry. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for underlining the importance of the matter in new clause 1.
	The lead responsibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) said, lies with the Patent Office in consultation with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The Patent Office is responsible for intellectual property, including copyright, in the UK. The DTI and DCMS sponsor the affected industries. It is important not to confuse those responsibilities by suggesting that somebody else might share them.

Michael Fabricant: The Minister is surely not suggesting that the DTI and more especially the Patent Office would pull groups of people together to try to agree international standards?

Stephen Timms: I am suggesting that the Patent Office can and does bring together different parts of the industry. Indeed, the Patent Office acts as the chairman for the counterfeiting and piracy forum, which brings together the relevant interests in the public and private sectors to discuss better co-operation and co-ordination against this crime. In the past year, for example, its members have discussed closer working between affected industries and the police hi-tech crime unit. In addition, the proposals that we have made in the context of the UK implementation of the copyright directive include a new criminal offence in copyright law to apply to those who wilfully make copyright material available on the internet without a licence in the course of business proceedings or on a commercial scale. That will assist enforcers seeking to deal with piracy of digital material.
	Different approaches are needed to combat illegal private copying on the internet. The proposals for implementation of the copyright directive would strengthen the action to be taken against those who circumvent technical protection measures or provide equipment or services for doing so, which we discussed. Those are particularly important in the internet environment and provide copyright owners with statutory backing to develop their use of the technology. However, the copyright directive does not mandate the use of particular technology; that is an issue for rights holders to decide for themselves. The fact that recent pirate copies of films were reported to have been traced back to unprotected copies given pre-release to academy award judges suggests that the film industry needs to reflect on its own use of appropriate technology.
	The recitals in the copyright directive emphasise the importance of all the parties involved—rights holders, intermediaries and equipment manufacturers—reaching voluntary agreements on standards. That must be the right way forward, not least in view of the inherently international character of the net.
	Digital rights management is important for the content industries. We are already working with industry on that as part of the work of the broadband stakeholder group. It is aimed to create an inventory of current content management systems, and to spread wider knowledge about likely value chains and the major economic, legal and technical issues at different points in those chains. A framework is to be set up within which to evaluate the various elements of digital rights management. Much work is going on in this area. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be reassured that we are taking the issue seriously.
	The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) called for better procedures around notice and take-down for internet service providers. He has given us an example of why, the week before last, he was designated "internet hero" at the annual award ceremony of the Internet Service Providers Association. The e-commerce directive, which we have implemented in the UK, provides a defence for internet service providers as mere conduits. Officials are discussing with internet service providers whether there is a need for guidance on notice and take down—the point that the hon. Gentleman made.
	I would not favour giving Ofcom a specific remit in this field, as that would have only tangential relevance to its core remits set out in clause 3(1) or to the functions set out in the Bill or in existing legislation that the Bill will transfer to Ofcom. Of course, there is nothing to stop Ofcom conducting the kind of discussion envisaged in the new clause and proposed by my right hon. Friend. I know that those at Ofcom will read with great interest the discussion that we have just had, and what he and others said in the debate. The issue is one to which the Patent Office is fully committed, in consultation with the two Government Departments. I believe that that is the right institutional lead for policy work in this area, and on that basis I hope that my right hon. Friend will withdraw the motion.

Chris Smith: The debate has been extremely interesting and valuable. Part of my purpose in tabling the new clause was to ensure that the House had a chance to air some of the issues around the developing problem. Every contributor to the debate recognised that the issue is real. There is a serious problem, and as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) said, there is potentially a disincentive to creativity if unauthorised downloading of material takes off in a major way.
	Various solutions have been proposed by hon. Members in all parts of the House, highlighting the need to change the culture, as young people in particular see unauthorised downloading as a natural activity; the need to get a move on with the implementation of the EU copyright directive; the need to improve the notice and take down procedures where unauthorised material has been identified; the need to make the legitimate purpose of material more valuable, more desirable, more affordable and more accessible; and the need to make the opportunity to take material legitimately more attractive than the opportunity to take material in an unauthorised way. There may well be some technological answers too, especially if global agreement can be reached. I hope that all the issues raised will be taken into account by the DTI and DCMS, and even by the Patent Office, perhaps.
	That brings me to my final point. I was a little disappointed that the Minister placed such emphasis purely on the role of the Patent Office. One of the reasons for wishing Ofcom to take an interest in this area of activity is that Ofcom has the clout vis-à-vis the parts of the industry concerned. It is Ofcom that will be the regulator of broadcasting and telecommunications. It therefore has considerable muscle to persuade the various parts of the digital landscape to get together and find various means to tackle the problems. Ofcom has that muscle; the Patent Office does not. The Minister says there is nothing to prevent Ofcom taking an interest in this area of activity. I hope Ofcom will take note. As soon as Ofcom is up and running, I hope that it will discuss with the Patent Office how they can work together to develop the lines of attack necessary to make sure that the problem is taken seriously.
	With that hope in mind, and with the hope that the matter may be aired in another place, I believe that it will assist the progress of debate if, at this stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2
	 — 
	Duty to Promote New Telecommunications Technologies

'It shall be the duty of OFCOM to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies, including broadband.'.—[Mr. Yeo.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Tim Yeo: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 27—Creator consultation—
	'(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to establish and maintain effective arrangements for consultation about the carrying out of their functions with—
	(a) creators, including a person from the United Kingdom music creating community, in the markets for television content supply for independent producers and the public service and commercial broadcasters in relation to which OFCOM have functions; and
	(b) creators, including a person from the United Kingdom music creating community, in the markets for radio broadcasting in relation to which OFCOM have functions.
	(1) The arrangements must include the establishment and maintenance of a panel of persons (in this Act referred to as "the Creator Panel") with the function of advising both—
	(a) OFCOM; and
	(b) such other persons as the Panel think fit.
	(3) The arrangements made by OFCOM under this section must also secure that the Creator Panel are able to do each of the following—
	(a) make arrangements for the carrying out of research into matters appearing to the Panel to be relevant to the carrying out of OFCOM'S duties and the Panel's functions as they think fit;
	(b) give advice to OFCOM in relation to any matter referred to the Panel by OFCOM for advice;
	(c) publish such information as the Panel think fit about the advice they give, and about the results of research carried out by them or on their behalf.
	(4) It shall be the duty of OFCOM, in the carrying out of their functions, to consider and, to such extent as they think appropriate, to have regard to—
	(a) any advice given to OFCOM by the Creator Panel; and
	(b) any results notified to OFCOM of any research undertaken by that Panel.
	(5) It shall also be the duty of OFCOM (subject to subsection (6))—
	(a) to provide the Creator Panel with all such information as, having regard, in particular, to the need to preserve commercial confidentiality, OFCOM consider appropriate to disclose to the Panel for the purpose of enabling the Panel to carry out their functions; and
	(b) to provide the Panel with all such further information as the Panel may require.
	(6) OFCOM is not required to provide information by virtue of subsection (5)(b) if, having regard to:
	(a) the need to preserve commercial confidentiality; and
	(b) any other matters that appear to OFCOM to be relevant, it is reasonable for OFCOM to refuse to disclose it to the Panel.
	(7) It shall be the duty of OFCOM, in the case of any advice or opinion received from and published by the Panel which OFCOM propose to disregard in whole or in part, or with which OFCOM disagree in whole or in part—
	(a) to ensure that the Panel know of OFCOM's reasons for disregarding or disagreeing with the advice or opinion; and
	(b) to ensure that those reasons are or have been published in such a manner as OFCOM consider appropriate for bringing them to the attention of persons who are aware of the Panel's advice or opinion.'.
	Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 4 [Clause 3], after 'markets', insert 'and the public interest'.
	Government amendment No. 215.
	Amendment No. 278, in page 3, line 33 [Clause 3], at end insert
	'and, in particular, the desirability of encouraging investment and innovation so as to secure the availability to users of electronic communications networks of services of ever greater bandwidth;'.
	Government amendment No. 216.
	Amendment No. 151, in page 3, line 39 [Clause 3], at end insert—
	'(gg) the position of employees in the industry;'.
	Amendment No. 187, in page 4, line 3 [Clause 3], at end insert—
	'(n) the impact of developments in relevant markets upon creators and performers.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 217 to 221.
	Amendment No. 188, in page 11, line 24 [Clause 11], at end insert—
	'(5A) In appointing persons to be members of the Content Board, OFCOM must also secure that certain members have experience to represent the interests of the creators and producers involved in the programme and music to be included in the services relevant to the duties of the Board.'.
	Amendment No. 189, in page 13, line 6 [Clause 12], at end insert—
	'(6A) The power of OFCOM to authorise the establishment of a Committee or Panel by the Content Board includes power to authorise the establishment of a Creators Panel, including persons from the United Kingdom music-creating community.'.

Tim Yeo: It is generally accepted that the rapid introduction of broadband technology in Britain is important to our country. Schools, universities, hospitals, medical practices, businesses and domestic consumers will all benefit from being able to receive and transmit web-based information. The Government, too, have a big interest in the roll-out of the technology. As the Confederation of British Industry stated, broadband is central to the growth of the knowledge-based economy.
	Ministers have said that they are committed to a fast and efficient roll-out of broadband. The Government's target is for Britain to have the most extensive and competitive broadband market in the G7 by 2005—a target set by the Secretary of State herself when she was the e-Minister. In pursuit of that, the Government have promised to work to ensure that broadband is accessible in all parts of the country. They claim to have developed a strategy to achieve that goal and to measure our success. Unfortunately, the strategy is not yet working as effectively as everyone would wish. As the CBI points out,
	"lack of competition in the telecommunications market has stalled investment in the required infrastructure".
	The broadband stakeholder group estimated last November that terrestrial broadband services were still unavailable to a third of Britain's 24 million households. Two out of five people living in suburban areas are still excluded. The proportion of people who can access broadband in rural areas is so small that it is simply described as "significantly lower".
	There is immense frustration that the Government are talking a good game while doing very little to deliver on their promises. The CBI states that Britain lies sixth among the G7 countries in terms of broadband connections and that few small and medium-sized enterprises are yet connected. According to the broadband stakeholder group, only one household in 25 is currently subscribing to broadband. Fewer than one household in every 30 that has a computer is hooked up to a broadband service, and in the business community, among firms employing more than 10 people, fewer than one in five has a broadband connection. In January this year, only 1.4 million households and businesses were connected to a broadband service. According to Oftel, Britain has only slightly more than half as many lines connected to broadband per head of population as Germany and just over a quarter as many as Sweden.
	Of course, broadband is not yet attractive to everyone. Some users are content with lower speed and a lower price, but broadband offers such potential to enhance knowledge and deliver competitive advantage that I believe that it will not be long before it is as much a part of national infrastructure as the road system, the railways, mains drainage and telephones—

James Paice: And in a better state.

Tim Yeo: As my hon. Friend says, we hope that it will be in a better state than the roads or railways.
	It is the Government's job to create an environment in which broadband services are widely accessible. A critical part of such an environment is effective competition. The House will be aware that broadband is not synonymous with ADSL—asymmetric digital subscriber line—technology, but can be delivered by ADSL, cable, wireless or satellite. In this country, ADSL is associated with BT, whose subsidiary, BTopenworld, has roughly 50 per cent. of the market of retail broadband services based on ADSL infrastructure.
	Technology changes and develops in unpredictable ways, so it would unwise for the Government or even the Opposition to be prescriptive about the form of broadband distribution that is used. In Britain, we are fortunate, as distribution is not confined to BT. Ntl and Telewest also provide cable modem services, although only to a minority of households.
	In spite of Oftel's optimistic comments, it is worrying that the Government's targets are still not being met. There is a lack of clarity in the institutional and competitive framework that the Government have created, and their failure to create an adequate competitive environment is damaging. Actions and legislation that seek merely to promote broadband without regard to how that should be done are insufficient. The Government should have a duty to promote competition and reduce regulation.

Chris Mole: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in requiring BT to carry out the local loop unbundling exercise, a framework was created for competition in the provision of broadband services in the local loop? The difficulty was that after the delay of carrying out the exercise, there was no apparent demand from other suppliers to act as competitors through the local loop.

Tim Yeo: The other suppliers might say that that had something to do with the terms of availability. In any event, I do not think that the speed with which BT addressed that objective is a cause for much congratulation. Different people will attribute to a variety of reasons the failure to develop a more competitive market more quickly.
	The preamble of the American Telecommunications Act 1996 sets out a purpose that the House should take to heart. I have incorporated the words of that preamble into the new clause. The promotion of competition is an essential ingredient of a successful telecoms policy, especially when one major provider is a former state monopoly. The role of the regulator is to introduce conditions for a fair, open and transparent market, particularly where there has previously been market failure. Regulators must be free from day-to-day political interference and should not form part of the central planning apparatus of government.
	Under Labour, Oftel's cutting edge has been eroded and its accountability reduced. Ministers have done that through the creation of the new and separate office of the e-envoy in the Cabinet Office—a typical prime ministerial initiative that owed more to spin and optimism than to analysis or hard work. Like many such initiatives, the e-envoy initiative is not proving conspicuously successful. The House will recall the fanfare that was given when the Small Business Service was set up in April 2000 under a chief executive whom we were told had direct access to the Prime Minister. Two years later, after heavy spending and little delivery, that privilege was quietly withdrawn.
	The House will also recall the Prime Minister's endorsement of heady recommendations of the Cabinet Office's performance and innovation unit for the ill-named Consignia. Today's reality is a shrinking post office network, the withdrawal of cash payment benefits and a charge card that post office staff are unable to process. Similarly, the reality of the UK's broadband roll-out under the e-envoy initiative is a constricted footprint and lamentable take-up—the consequence of the Government's conviction that institutions and former state monopolies are better at delivering economic dynamism than commercial undertakings operating in liberalised markets.
	The Government's approach can be seen in their grant of £30 million for broadband to the regional development agencies. According to the Secretary of State, her largesse was given so that
	"a digital divide in high speed Internet access does not open up between urban and rural communities."
	In Cornwall, the RDA took that as a signal to launch an advertising campaign designed to steer business customers to BT. In the east midlands, the RDA blames the lack of adequate broadband services on the Government's decision to induce telecoms companies to tender large bids for third-generation mobile phone licences. It plans to use its grant on a wired-up communities competition that will take three years to come to fruition. That same RDA blames the failure to provide a broadband service to rural areas on a slowdown in the international IT industry.
	The RDAs are the last bodies that the Government should use. The futility of their efforts is illustrated in a test project named RABBIT—remote area broadband inclusion trial—that aims to tempt remote broadband users through a £700 grant to identify alternative sources of broadband supply whose prospects of success are uncertain. Instead of more rabbit stew, the Government should create a more competitive environment to encourage new entrants to the market. They should entrust the regulator with a remit to protect against market abuse until a competitive market evolves. It is for the regulator and not the e-envoy, and certainly not the RDAs, to protect users and consumers of national services and utilities and to stimulate national competitiveness. It is for the regulator to encourage progressive liberalisation of the marketplace to bring about universal access and a uniform and transparent tariff.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), whom I see in his place, has identified BT's jealousy as an impediment to progress and pressed for greater transparency. Like other former state monopolies, BT honed formidable skills for protecting its interests. It is aware that opening up consumer access to broadband services potentially opens up access to its own competitors. It focuses on how it can meet the demands of the Government and the regulator to expand the service while ensuring that that is done not only at high profit levels, but in a manner that deflects the challenge from competitors.
	I believe that the Government should restore the authority of the regulator. The regulator should impose a regime of greater transparency on BT, which should provide clear forward plans for its national ADSL footprint and reveal which exchanges are to be ADSL enabled and how many telephone connections they have. BT should explain the financial criteria and broadband targets by which such decisions are made. It should speed up the provision of unbundled loops and shared line access and the release of wholesale products, and targets should be published for those goals.
	Without that transparency, the public will be disadvantaged. People cannot plan broadband investment through a cable network or alternatively through wireless or satellite. Business and individuals in rural areas and out-of-town communities are losing out. All that information would help individuals, businesses and community groups to make sensible decisions. It would help firms with competing technologies in broadband supply to fine-tune their investment criteria, attract funding and identify market openings. That information would build market confidence and stimulate competition in both ADSL itself and in respect of alternatives. It would encourage liberalisation of the market, which would lead to expanded choice and lower prices for service users throughout Britain.
	Universal broadband access will drive economic growth and reduce rural isolation, and could slow the drift of employment and population to the south-east. It will help businesses large and small nationwide and enhance Britain's competitiveness. Due to the market-distorting actions of the Government, remedial action is needed. The new clause would impose a duty on the Government to promote competition in order to secure lower prices, increase choice and higher quality services for users of broadband services in the UK. I commend it to the House.

John Robertson: I am delighted to participate once again in the debate on the Bill, and I draw my entry in the Register of Members' Interests to the attention of the House.
	Before entering Parliament, I worked for BT for 31 years and, unlike Opposition Front Benchers, I will not try to vilify or undermine BT or the work force, as I have much to thank them for. I shall not interrupt those Members as they do so, as only they can say why they want to mount an onslaught on a company such as BT, and the BBC for that matter. I am also chair of the all-party telecommunications group, so it might be said that I have a passionate interest in the subject.
	Next year, Ofcom will replace the existing system of regulation, which dates from the last century. Telecommunications, television and radio developed more or less independently and could therefore be monitored individually. The existing regulatory framework is complex and the pace of convergence is still accelerating.
	I draw the House's attention to the Bill's endorsement of interested parties as stakeholders. I am disappointed that employees are not identified as key stakeholders whereas others, such as businesses and consumers, are highlighted as such. At the last meeting of the all-party group, my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness and Lord Currie, the new chair of Ofcom, said that they recognise that employees have a large part to play and are, of course, stakeholders in the industry, but nothing in the Bill says so. Consequently, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) and I have tabled amendment No. 151, which would close a loophole. Employees know the business from the sharp end and have much to contribute.
	The communications industry has a number of endemic problems, which need not be the case as they could be addressed by the Bill, thus remedying them in the long term. The industry often fails to focus on key issues for employees—for example, skills levels, appropriate provision for training and personal development, which are not always expensive but are much needed. Those factors, among others, have resulted in difficulties in long-term retention of employees. Furthermore, some companies—in my experience, BT is one—place important emphasis on training and personal development, although perhaps not as much as they used to.
	The problem is that when the industry is buoyant, the highly trained employees are head hunted by other companies that place little value on training. The European Union high level taskforce on skills and mobility reports that 80 per cent. of today's skills will be obsolete in 10 years. When such employees, who were once highly skilled, do not undergo sufficient training, that is detrimental to the industry, as employers cannot fill vacancies and a skill shortage becomes apparent. Ultimately, that makes it harder for employees to find alternative employment should the industry slump. I do not want to come back to the House in 10 years and say, "I told you so." That, of course, assumes that I will be re-elected. I hope I am, along with a Labour Government.
	Lifelong learning is essential to tackle such shortages and mismatches, which hold back economic development and job growth. Since mid-1999, business throughout Europe has increasingly reported production constraints due to labour shortage. Although I have used these figures before, I shall do so again to illustrate the chronic skills shortage that we are set to see. According to the European Information Technology Observatory, the number of unfilled vacancies in the EU information and communications technology and e-business sectors is expected to rise from 2.23 million in 2001 to 3.67 million in 2003. That is an increase of 65 per cent. If the full economic and employment potential of the telecommunications sector is to be realised, a training responsibility for the sector's employers must be stipulated in the Bill. How else can we expect to fill those jobs in the years to come?
	Unfortunately, the amendments to clause 24 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester and I were not selected, but what applies to that clause also applies to clause 3, and my points on a specific duty on Ofcom regarding the promotion of equal opportunities and training for employees are relevant to it.
	The need to recognise employees as stakeholders is obvious, but that training mandate applies only to those working in the broadcasting industry. The communications industry has a key role to play in the development of the national skill stock, but such a mandate is not in the Bill. How can we expect to have "Broadband Britain" without a well-trained and motivated work force? Although I would have liked clause 24 to be amended to extend that duty to cover employees in the telecoms industry, I am pleased that my amendment to clause 3 has been selected. I hope that we can incorporate the issue of employees as stakeholders in the Bill for the reasons that I have stated.
	I am concerned that, as the focus is so firmly on competition and consumer interest, the interests of employees could be disregarded. This is an opportune time to address those issues, and I would like Ofcom to have a specific mandate in that regard.

Nick Harvey: I shall address my remarks to amendment No. 3, which stands in my name and those of various Members from both sides of the Chamber. I shall also speak to new clause 27 and amendments Nos. 187, 188 and 189.
	Amendment No. 3 and Government amendment No. 215 consider the wider public interest beyond that simply of the consumer. An important change is being made to the Bill, which will fundamentally alter what Ofcom is and what it does. The amendments are hugely significant. Last summer, a Joint Committee of the two Houses considered the draft Bill, and one of its recommendations was that the wider public interest ought to be added to Ofcom's general duties. That issue was debated at length in Standing Committee, and I am particularly pleased that Government amendment No. 215 has been tabled. It is important for Ofcom to have a wider perspective and wider duty.
	The interests of consumers are important, and it is entirely right that Ofcom will have the duty to protect those interests, where possible through competition, but they are not the same as the interests of the wider public. Indeed, there can be circumstances in which the interests of the consumer may be contrary to those of the wider public.
	There are instances in which economic forces can apply a perverse effect, so it is therefore absolutely right that Ofcom should have a wider responsibility. I am particularly pleased that the Government have arrived at that conclusion and have introduced their own formulation, which refers to the interests of the wider community. It will have much the same effect as the wording in other amendments. I am glad also that, having not initially accepted the recommendation made by the Committee last summer, the Government have been persuaded during consideration to reach that conclusion, which will make the entirety of the regime more effective. It will also make Ofcom more effective and make the Bill altogether more successful.
	New clause 27 and amendments Nos. 187, 188 and 189 deal with interests of creators, whether they be composers, musical performers or other performers—indeed, creators of every kind. The UK's media creative industries are very strong, and are at the cutting edge of content creation in the communications revolution. Original creative input is a vital ingredient, and often serves as a stimulus for both the production of new services and the improvement of existing ones. Music, for instance, is fundamental to our existing television and radio services, and will become even more so with the arrival of multi-channel television.
	The amendments would give Ofcom specific obligations to protect the interests of the creative sector. Given the intended revolution in ownership rules and the potential for greater American ownership of British media interests, British consumers might well not accept huge quantities of American content on our television channels, but I wonder whether they would be able to tell the difference between, say, British and American incidental music. If we are to go on giving creative industries and creators opportunities in the UK media, it will be important for Ofcom to consider their interests and future viability at all times.
	The success of individuals and companies in our music industry depends heavily on opportunities for the creation of music for—and, indeed, the broadcasting of music by—national and regional radio and television services. Any reform of the regulatory environment on the scale that we are discussing will have a direct impact on all our creative industries. Composers and music publishers' earnings from the exploitation of music by television and radio exceed £100 million a year. Amendment No. 187 would ensure that our regulatory structures support and have regard to the impact of developments on creators and performers.
	Amendment No. 188 suggests that the content board is the obvious part of Ofcom to secure the best conditions for the creation and supply of new creative content. Following the Joint Committee's recommendations last summer, the Government moved swiftly to authorise a review of programme supply, which was conducted by the ITC. That was welcome, but I do not think we should see it as a one-off: we need to keep the issues of programme and content under constant review.

John Greenway: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the creators panel would be part of the content board. As the content board has no real control over or responsibility for the content of the BBC's output, should the panel apply to the BBC? Or is this yet another Liberal Democrat proposal to micro-manage commercial broadcasting but not the BBC?

Nick Harvey: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. He and his colleagues are preoccupied with the idea that Ofcom has no responsibility for examining the BBC's activities, but that is not the reality that confronts us in the Bill. Of course I think that the content board's creators panel should look at creative issues in the widest possible sense—including, certainly, what goes on at the BBC. The board is the obvious body to look at such issues, which is why I suggest the inclusion of a creators' representative, preferably one with working experience of the creative industries. That would ensure that their interests were not just understood but taken into account in decisions that would have a direct impact on them.

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, advancing an excellent argument. Does he agree that the content board should also consider issues involving the various regions and nations?

Nick Harvey: Certainly we should consider creative input in the widest possible sense, which would involve a good deal of national and regional diversity.
	Amendment No. 189 suggests that the content board form and convene a panel whose chairman would be on the content board. The Bill would provide for the panel to take account of the creative contribution to broadcasting, and to ensure that the UK maintained its pre-eminent position. The new clause has the same aim.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) wants to say something about broadband. I hope the Government will look sympathetically on what I have said.

Parmjit Dhanda: I am glad of the opportunity to speak on the Floor of the House after three months of debate in Committee. I begin by declaring an interest: like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), I have a strong link with Connect, the union for professionals in communications. It helps to fund my researcher, who helps me by researching all aspects of the communications industry.
	The Bill covers a wide range of issues, but I want to concentrate on amendment No. 151. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland and I tabled it as a result of ongoing investigations of, in particular, the position of employees in telecommunications. We discussed some of them in Committee.
	Last year, when I spoke in a debate on Ofcom and declared my support for the creation of a unified regulator, we discussed traditional distinctions between telephony, radio, the internet and television. Those distinctions, which were still evident only a few years ago, have become increasingly blurred. We have seen that one type of equipment can offer the consumer multiple functions. Telecoms companies are exploring the possibilities of broadcasting, while broadcasters are moving into e-commerce and internet service providers are also providing television channels.
	I accept all that, but I am worried that telecommunications employees are not mentioned in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland and I tabled two amendments to clause 24, which were not selected but which sought to establish a clear requirement for Ofcom to provide training and equal opportunities for employees. The Bill already makes such provision for broadcasting employees, but it does not extend to those in telecommunications.
	I know from meetings with the Minister and our debates in Committee that the decision to provide for training for broadcasting employees was historical. Such training has existed for many years, but telecommunications employees were excluded because there was no historical provision for training. The fact that I understand that does not necessarily make it right.
	The entire Bill was designed to look forward to the convergence of the industry but, in failing to address this particular point, we are missing out by looking backwards at the tradition in broadcasting, rather than to the future. We must ensure that we get the Bill absolutely right. The paving Bill was important because it created Ofcom, but this Bill is all the more crucial because it represents our chance to ensure that the design of Ofcom is absolutely right and that its duties are stipulated in the Bill.
	I share the Government's goal to make Britain the most dynamic broadband market in the G7, but we will not achieve our goals without a highly motivated work force. That is the key thrust of the amendment. Regulatory regimes should take account of the interests of employees as stakeholders in the industry. Ofcom should be given specific responsibilities to provide an overview of the employment resource in general, and, in particular, of the health and safety, skill levels, personal development and training of people working in the industry, quality of service provision and of emergency cover.
	I speak in support of the overwhelming number of clauses in the Bill, and of the Bill generally, but I am keen to tighten up the areas that could improve it still further. The consultation that took place has given us a good Bill but, to paraphrase the Joint Committee's statement, we can always make a good Bill even better.

George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda). Like him and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), I used to work in the telecommunications industry. That was some 30 years ago, in the Post Office—as it was then called—and the challenges that confronted us then were to remove the electro-mechanical exchanges and to move over to System X. I tried to join a trade union—I think it was ASTMS—but I was drummed out by Clive Jenkins, who described me as a "pin-striped bovver boy".
	New clause 2, which was ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), covers a wide range of issues. I want to focus on the last two words in the new clause—"including broadband"—and particularly on broadband in rural areas, which is now emerging as a major political issue. Although I have been critical of BT, it is also right to pay tribute to what it has been able to do over the past 12 months. It has reduced the wholesale price of broadband, introduced a rolling programme of enabling exchanges, and set targets where it has been able to do so. So, although I have been critical, I recognise that BT has been doing what it can.
	I recently received a letter from BT's director of public affairs, from which it is worth quoting to illustrate how the company views the issue. It is not "wholly uncritical" of the Government. The letter states:
	"Ovum has calculated that less than $5 per head has been spent by the UK government on supporting broadband infrastructure, compared with $25 in France and $90 in Japan. On that basis, BT's performance in already delivering a wider ADSL footprint in the UK than has been achieved in the USA looks reasonably creditable."
	BT therefore has its own dialogue to pursue in relation to its objective to roll out broadband.
	I suspect that about 50 per cent. of my constituents cannot get broadband. It is available in Andover and Tadley, and villages such as Oakley and Highclere have recently hit the target and will be enabled in due course. However, some fairly significant small towns and large villages—Whitchurch and Overton, for example—have no hope as yet.

Brian White: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are many people who cannot get broadband even where exchanges are enabled, because of old technologies and various other technical problems? Does he agree that it is incumbent on BT to resolve those problems—whether through wireless, broadband or whatever—as soon as possible?

George Young: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, whose energy and initiative in this area I applaud. BT also told me:
	"The average reach for each exchange is 94 per cent. of the population served by that exchange."
	The hon. Gentleman is therefore right. Even when an exchange is enabled, some people remain outwith its reach. The advertising campaign has irritated a large number of my constituents. It has urged them to register and sign up for broadband, but they cannot do so. Although I would not describe myself as socially excluded, neither I nor the chairman of BT, who lives quite close to me, can access broadband in north-west Hampshire.
	What is the position for people who cannot access broadband? A wide range of opportunities is, in theory, available to them. These people are, however, quite busy, and they take the view that broadband should be available without their having to ring up the South East England Development Agency or contact RABBIT, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) referred. They are not sure that it is really their job to risk their own personal capital by investing in a system for their village. They do not want to take the risk of investing in communication masts. What they really mind about, however, is the uncertainty. If they knew that there was no prospect whatever of getting broadband, they might well consider some of the alternatives, but not knowing whether their exchange might be enabled at some point in the future acts as a disincentive and an understandable deterrent to looking at some of the other options.

Pete Wishart: The right hon. Gentleman might be aware that no rural exchanges are enabled in Scotland. There are none in my North Tayside constituency. May I suggest that what is wrong is the trigger policy that BT has employed to enable exchanges? The trigger level has been set far too high for towns and villages in rural areas. In my constituency, for example, 350 people would be required to sign up in a town of 5,000 to 6,000 people. How can we ever get people enabled when the trigger is set so high?

George Young: My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk mentioned transparency and openness. One thing that would help this debate would be to have in the public domain more figures showing the actual costs, so that some of the estimates might be challenged and we could see whether the costs were really as high as BT has asserted.
	I want to raise with the Minister an issue about which I have written to him twice. I commend his enthusiasm for this subject. He kindly wrote back to me a few days ago in response to a question about the Prime Minister's commitment, made in November, that every school and GP's surgery would be on broadband by the beginning of 2006. I welcome that commitment and I am prepared to believe that the Prime Minister means to adhere to it. I have tried to find out from the Minister how that commitment is to be delivered. What is the mechanism by which the small village schools and the medical centres in the more remote villages in my constituency will be plugged into broadband? Will the Minister direct BT to enable the nearest exchange? Will there be some alternative delivery mechanism, such as fibre optics, wireless or satellite?
	This is important because the solution for schools and medical centres is hugely relevant to everyone else in the area, and their not knowing exactly how that commitment will be delivered could result in an obstruction to some of the alternatives that might otherwise be considered. Will the Minister answer the specific question of how he can give a cast-iron guarantee that Overton primary school, for example, will get the service that the Prime Minister has promised it by the end of 2005? Once we have an answer to that question, some of the other questions can be answered. If the solution is to use one particular form of technology, it can be piggy-backed by everyone else in the village, and they, too, can get access to the services that they need. I hope that the Minister will be able to shed some light on that matter.
	It would also be helpful if the Minister could commit himself to removing any regulatory obstacles that might confront Ofcom or Oftel in the roll-out of broadband. We do not want unnecessary regulatory hurdles to have to be cleared before we can realise our shared ambition of making this country internationally competitive by having more widely available access to broadband.

John Pugh: I am speaking broadly out of sympathy with new clause 2, which calls for a decreased role for regulation, and in support of amendment No. 3, which asks us to take on board a wider public interest. I shall be brief, because I have only one specific concern. I shall then leave the Floor to those who are more expert than I in the ways of the Communications Bill.
	I shall concentrate on one specific consumer concern, and on the role of Ofcom and Oftel in addressing it. I have already raised the issue in an early-day motion; it relates to call waiting and telephone queueing systems. We all have experience of being kept waiting, at our own expense, for an answer that never actually comes, and with ringing off in frustration. I have taken up this matter with Oftel, which assures me that it has no powers to address the problem. It looks forward to the Bill's resulting in some codes of practice that will help it to do so.
	Telephone filtering creates some minor difficulties, but I want to distinguish that issue from call queuing, because although they are related, they create different problems. There are problems with disabled or old people using call-filtering systems when the timing is wrong for them, and there are also problems of access and clarity. I do not want to focus on filtering. Both filtering and queueing are aspects of modern call centres, which were initially introduced as a means of being efficient. Nowadays, they are run predominantly as a way of making a cost saving. We all accept that call centres are the modern sweatshops. We are all familiar with being kept waiting in queues, with endless piped music, with the spurious promise that one's call will be answered quite soon, with the irritating and increasingly common plugs for products that people do not want in the first place, and with the frankly dishonest messages saying that one's call is valued—but never valued enough to be actually answered.
	The net effect on the nation is quite appreciable. It is bad for the blood pressure and it leads, I am afraid, to rudeness from us as consumers when we finally get through to someone who cannot answer the question that we have been waiting for a long time to have answered. There is a massive and unquantifiable cost across the country to individual firms and to individuals themselves. There is also an enormous opportunity cost, in terms of time wasted for individuals and businesses. Apparently, 30 per cent. of calls made to such institutions are futile, with people simply ringing off at a cost purely to themselves.

Chris Mole: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is impossible to generalise about call centres across the piece. It is surely down to the business that wants to provide access for its customers to define the standard of customer relationship management that it wants to buy from a call centre or other provider, regardless of which facilities manager is offering the service. An excellent example is the company 24seven, which experienced an overload of calls to its call centre during November's poor weather. The essential question must be: what standard of customer relationship management did it purchase from its provider?

John Pugh: The question is probably simpler than that: what standards should we, as consumers, demand, and how should they be enforced? I recognise that good and bad practice exist, but the latter is currently predominant, and the public expect legislators to do something about it. There is wholesale abuse of the call centre system not simply by the centres themselves, but by people such as ourselves—heaven forbid—who sometimes need to make very long and expensive calls, and who do so on somebody else's telephone. A net effect of all this is substantial profits for the telecoms companies themselves. I should point out that some of these companies number among the serial offenders that profit from such misdemeanours. People are kept waiting, and they pay to be kept waiting.
	Everyone recognises this abuse, and they regard it as a big consumer issue. The question is: what precisely is the solution? We need a measure of regulation, and I do not know whether current or foreseen legislation will accommodate it. There are alternative solutions. One could suggest the free market solution, whereby firms that provide a rotten service eventually lose out, but I do not think that that fully addresses the issue. Although firms that keep people hanging on get a bad reputation for call handling, they also make a substantial saving in terms of employee costs.
	Secondly, telephone call queues are slightly different from other sorts of queues. One can see a queue in a supermarket and choose to go to another supermarket. One can see a queue at a taxi rank and choose to get the bus home. However, once one is in a call queue, a way out cannot be seen, and to withdraw from it involves a sheer loss.
	Thirdly, the telecommunications industry involves a system of dishonest trading. In many cases, people are told that their call will be answered shortly, but in fact it will not be. That is misrepresentation, and at the moment it is not covered by legislation. The fourth reason why a free market solution will not work is because a lot of the calls that one makes are not of a routine character. One has little reason—hopefully—to telephone an insurance line frequently, so one cannot punish such a call centre by not phoning again, given that the reasons for ringing in the first place are far from routine.
	The legislation appears to encompass a degree of self-regulation—a code of good practice. I have looked at such codes in this area, and they are wholly inadequate in terms of satisfying consumers that this problem will be dealt with. In any case, a code of good practice would be followed only by good firms; it would not be binding on bad ones.
	A third way to resolve this problem—it has been alluded to—is an alternative to the regulation that most of us do not want unless it is really necessary: to hope that technology will so develop that the bad practices that have grown with it will eventually disappear through better technology. Since tabling the early-day motion to which I referred, several organisations that I have contacted have made that suggestion. They suggested that speech-recognition technology might be the way forward and that, some day, we will be able to converse with a mechanised voice at the end of the phone with as much satisfaction as we currently experience when dealing with human operators. A character such as Holly, from the programme "Red Dwarf", will speak to us, and everybody will be able to save money without in any way impairing the service provided to the consumer.
	Some people suggest the use of ring-back technology. It is true that, should firms wish to implement it, such technology could be used to enable people to put down the phone yet keep their place in the queue, and to be phoned back at the appropriate moment. That could sharpen up the market, and good firms would undoubtedly adopt such practices. However, I believe that there is a case for regulation. High-volume call centres should, by law, have to advertise their average call waiting times, and they should do so when contact is first made and the phone is picked up. The consumer should have a right to complain to Ofcom and Oftel when those times are routinely exceeded, and Oftel should have the power to warn, and ultimately to penalise, firms that abuse the system. If, after investigation, the problem persists, there should be the potential for Oftel to take action. Such light-touch legislation—for that is all it need be—would save time, money and the nation's blood pressure. I want the Minister to clarify whether current legislation has the potential to incorporate a regulation as solid as this.
	Finally, I should like the Minister to clarify a specific point. The winners in all this are the telecoms industry and the telephone companies, and as I said, some of their lines are the principal serial offenders. Is it currently permissible for a call centre firm and a telecoms firm to establish a profit-sharing contract whereby, in return for a discount, the call centre has a real incentive not to answer calls immediately, to mutual profit? That may be the case under current legislation, and I should like the Minister to clarify that point.

James Paice: I am sure that the House is very grateful for an exposition on why the Liberal Democrats do not believe in the market economy. I agreed with little of what the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said, but I want to address my remarks to new clause 2, which was admirably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). Although it is common to say so in this place—indeed, it can be construed as a trite statement—I cannot for the life of me see why the Government should not accept the new clause. It is a perfectly reasonable provision, which would simply require Ofcom to ensure the operation of competition. The Government assure us that they believe in competition, but not in too much regulation; however, the reality seems to belie that. Of course, they also believe in broadband, so it seems perfectly reasonable to expect that they will accept the new clause.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) illustrated more ably than I can the problems of accessing broadband in rural areas. He said that perhaps 50 per cent. of his constituents could access broadband, but I suspect that in my area the figure is more like 15 per cent., if that.
	I have spent quite a lot of time over the past few months trying to ascertain how people throughout my constituency can access broadband. The problems are not unique to us, however, but are commonplace throughout rural areas. Extremely remote rural areas are affected, but so are areas such as mine, which abuts Cambridge city.
	The Cambridge science park is in the parish of Milton in my constituency, not in the city of Cambridge. It is connected to the Cambridge exchange and is able to access broadband. Absurdly, however, the rest of Milton parish is connected to a different exchange and is not broadband enabled. Milton is only one of the villages—I use the word advisedly, as we are talking about settlements of several thousand people—so affected. Those villages are full of small businesses, many of them at the leading edge of the knowledge revolution and the knowledge-based economy, yet they are not able to access broadband, and many have no prospect of being able to.
	Like my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire, I shall not be too critical of BT. It has made some progress in the past year, and has reduced the threshold targets in some exchanges in my constituency, which I welcome. It has introduced thresholds in a couple of exchanges that did not previously have them, and that is a step in the right direction. It is also considering the idea of aggregating different exchanges.
	One problem is that many consumers do not know what their exchange is. Many people confuse their exchanges with their STD codes. They do not understand why some people who share their dialling code are able to access broadband when they cannot.
	As a result of the inability to access broadband via BT and the fact that there is no prospect of that being possible, businesses and individuals with specialist knowledge are trying to devise their own ways to access the facility, using one of the various systems. In some cases, the villages in my area are partly cabled. The work was done by the Cambridge Cable Co., now part of ntl. That makes the threshold problem harder. If part of a village can access broadband via cable, it reduces the scope for other providers to meet the threshold laid down by BT. However, cable facilities are usually confined tightly to the centre of the villages, and it is highly unlikely that they could be extended.
	The upshot is that, in the village of Bottisham—not more than half a dozen miles from Cambridge—a group of people have put together a radio-based system. They lease a single copper line from Cambridge, and their system, which uses radio antennae, now operates through six parishes. These very advanced individuals have achieved this without recourse to a grant from the East of England Development Agency, mainly because in this matter they were ahead of the agency, which had not managed to get a grip. The agency now advocates all sorts of grants, but the people about whom I am talking had already got the system up and running and so received no grant money.
	The group did get a small grant from the Countryside Agency, which was very helpful, but parishes now approach the group and ask to join the local network, and no grant money is available to facilitate that. Neither the EEDA nor the Countryside Agency will assist them, because the system already exists. The parish of Little Wilbraham in my constituency wants to join in the system that I have described, but the costs will now be huge, and that seems incredibly perverse.
	The Bottisham entrepreneurs put the system together more than a year ago. I arranged for them to meet the then e-envoy, to discuss the problems involved. I hoped that they could pass their experiences on to the Government as an aid to policy. The envoy arranged an appointment at which he could meet my constituents and me, but the Minister, whom I am pleased to see in his place, wrote to me and said that he had taken over the envoy's responsibilities. He was not able to keep the appointment, which was a shame: my constituents were blazing a trail but were unable to present their case to the Minister.

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point, but he is describing what happens when there is competition. People can go against each other, and those in business must compete. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should consider the solution that he has outlined? Deutsche Telecom has not had the competition problems that we in this country have encountered. It has done quite well in making broadband access available.

James Paice: I am afraid that I know nothing about the Deutsche Telecom system, so I cannot comment. However, I was not suggesting anything that is anti-competition. I was trying to draw the House's attention to the holes in the Government's policy for promoting broadband. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire said when introducing the new clause, the development agencies are acting differently in different regions. My right hon. Friend said that the agency in Cornwall is getting on the back of BT, while other agencies are riding different horses. In the east of England, some people and businesses in my constituency are ahead, as the Bottisham example shows.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire referred to the problem as it affects schools, other public facilities, GPs' surgeries, and so on. The point cannot be over-emphasised. The Prime Minister made his undertaking—although some of us have become sceptical about such things—but if he is to fulfil the undertaking, broadband will have to be extended to the very large number of villages that have a primary school. However, there is no present prospect that broadband access will reach those villages. Like my right hon. Friend, I am fascinated to know how the Prime Minister envisages that that will happen.

Chris Mole: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the east of England broadband project E2B? For some time it has been placing contracts, with the result that schools in Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire have broadband access.

James Paice: I am very much aware of the project. To the best of my knowledge it has not delivered anything to my constituency, although I stand to be corrected on that. My point is that if the primary school can access broadband, the technology needs to be in the village, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire said. Logic implies, therefore, that at least some other members of the community could piggyback on that system. However, that is not yet happening.
	I certainly do not want to get into arguments about technology; I am the first to accept that my knowledge is extremely limited. I am primarily concerned about many residents of villages in my constituency who are at the leading edge of the knowledge revolution. Currently, they have to travel to Cambridge, London or elsewhere to work, yet many of them could, and indeed would, work from home at least part of the time. If they could do so, it would comply with many of the objectives not only of the Government but of the House: it would reduce travel, congestion and so on. However, unless those people have access to broadband, they will have to continue to travel to areas where it is provided.
	The new clause would enable the Government, through Ofcom, to roll out the provision of broadband far more effectively.

Nick Hawkins: I agree with my hon. Friend; villages in my constituency, too, could piggy-back and take advantage of the provision of broadband in schools if it was undertaken correctly.
	Recent surveys have shown that children—especially younger children—still prefer using books to using the internet. Although we want to ensure that broadband is provided, does my hon. Friend agree that we must also ensure that schools do not completely abandon traditional learning methods?

James Paice: My hon. Friend tempts me to go down a wholly improper path, so I shall resist. However, I am sure that he will understand that I have some sympathy with his point. I am delighted that the sale of books has not been as seriously affected by the development of the internet as many people prophesied.
	I have taken enough of the House's time. I wholly support the new clause. Ofcom should have a specific responsibility to accelerate the roll-out of broadband so that a large geographic area and a significant proportion of the population, such as my constituents, can access the latest technology and continue to play their part—as we do in Cambridgeshire—in driving forward the economy of our country.

Simon Thomas: This is an interesting and important debate. I have three brief comments.
	With the support of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), I tabled a reasoned amendment to the Second Reading of the Bill. I did so because I believed that the Bill made insufficient provision for the public interest and that it would, over time, so support the principle of competition in the marketplace that it would seriously penalise a great many consumers and citizens. We have heard examples of that in various parts of the country.
	Conservative Members may disagree, but I think that competition is failing to deliver what is required by our communities and what the Government say they want to deliver. The Government must address the fact that they are failing to miss their targets for the delivery of broadband and e-technology because the existing competition set-up will not permit them to achieve the necessary roll-out.
	I very much welcome the import of Government amendment No. 215 and look forward to the Minister's comments on it. Although I am not yet fully convinced, I think that it has taken on board the questions raised in both the Joint Committee and the Standing Committee about addressing the needs of citizens. Many of us believe that "citizen" is the correct word in this context and that as citizens of the nations of the United Kingdom we benefit from ownership of those things that are done in the spirit of the public interest.
	In Committee, we were told that "citizenship" had a particular meaning and that it applied only to nationality and immigration requirements. I am not convinced by that argument. After all, we have education for citizenship in our schools and so on, so surely it is relevant in a Bill dealing with communications. The words "to further the interests of the community as a whole", however, are a significant acceptance by the Government of the points made in the Committee, although I am not sure why the provision continues with the words "in relation to communications matters". In a Communications Bill, why do we have to specify that? It seems a little otiose. However, I shall wait for the Minister to explain.
	My second point is related to my first. Members on both sides of the House support the Government in their targets for the roll-out of broadband, but how are we to achieve them? The new clause moved by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo)—

Tim Yeo: Is very good.

Simon Thomas: I agree. The clause is good and it is important. Strangely, however, in arguing for the hon. Gentleman's clause, his hon. Friends argued against pure competition. That is what it boils down to.
	New clause 2 is important because it would put a duty on Ofcom to achieve something that, as is accepted, competition itself will not achieve. We will not roll out broadband to every part of these islands purely by using competition alone. We need to ensure that Ofcom works with those competitive providers with the spirit and intention of achieving that roll-out, and that where gaps exist, they will need to be plugged, probably by public investment.
	The hon. Member for South Suffolk rightly said that such things are as important as rolling out this country's road, rail, gas and electricity infrastructures. This is our great infrastructure project for the beginning of the 21st century. We need to take it on board in the way that people faced development of the railways in the 1830s and 1840s, although we do not want to replicate the problems with the railways that we inherited from that time.
	We need to have more of a sense of national purpose about how we achieve that infrastructure roll-out. For example, it did not take purely private, commercial or competitive companies to provide electricity connections; it took national investment. I want to make the point to the Government that national investment is needed to achieve broadband roll-out, working in co-operation, of course, with the public companies that can achieve it.

John Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) hit the nail on the head with his stories about having too much competition?

Simon Thomas: I am not sure about the phrase "too much competition", but I accept what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say. We have a market that is very attractive to the companies, albeit that it tends to be in the towns, cities and larger conurbations, where they can chase the same customers and play one customer off against the other. We see adverts in the papers, advertising broadband for £29.99, and the next company's price is £27.99. That is frustrating for my constituents, who cannot get broadband at all.
	Aberystwyth is the only town in my constituency that is broadband enabled, but there is just one exchange. The important point has been made that broadband is not the same as the standard trunk dialling codes. Those who walk into the town on a market day expecting to be able to buy into broadband when they walk into Currys on the high street simply do not get what they deserve. It is the same as walking into Dixons or Currys and finding digital radio on sale, which people can do in Aberystwyth. Digital radio is a wonderful thing, but it does not come within 50 miles of Aberystwyth. I am not sure what those companies are trying to achieve by putting those products on their shelves. It is very frustrating for the consumer.
	BT is still the major provider of telecommunications in Wales. Outside Cardiff and some of the south Wales valleys that have been cable enabled, there is no choice but BT, so I am trying to get the exchange in Cardigan enabled, as it is next biggest town in my constituency, although only 3,000 or 4,000 people live there. I am pleased that BT has agreed that that exchange should be enabled next.
	Moreover, after several meetings, BT has decreased the threshold requirement—it is now down to 300 people for that exchange—but we have 71 signed up at the moment, so the gap is still fairly significant. Persuading SMEs to sign up to something when they cannot see the benefits is very difficult indeed.
	Cardigan is facing 400 redundancies in two industries over the next year, although we have had an injection of finance from the National Assembly. I should like that money to be used to bridge the digital gap, so that we can invest in things such as broadband. I want Ofcom to be involved in such a public interest consideration, in conjunction with local communities, or with the regional development agencies in England or, in Wales and Scotland, with the Governments of those countries.
	We can achieve broadband roll-out in other ways in rural areas—radio is an obvious one and satellite might be brought into play. The National Assembly for Wales has published the Welsh Development Agency's Ubiquity report on achieving broadband roll-out in Wales and, as hon. Members might expect, the targets are very similar to those of the UK Government. Again, delivering services to every school is part of that process.
	One of the difficulties, however, is that the 3.8 GHz radio spectrum is about to be auctioned in Wales, as it was not auctioned last time round. The repackaging that has happened has split Wales into three parts, and has placed north, mid and south Wales with significant parts of England. That may not be a bad thing if it means that we can get things moving, but it creates the rather worrying prospect that one part will be successfully sold and auctioned, whereas another part will not.
	The Minister should be in receipt of a letter from Christine Gwyther, the Labour AM who chairs the Economic Development Committee of the National Assembly. The letter outlines the Committee's deep unhappiness about the way in which radio spectrum has been auctioned in Wales, as it is seen as an important weapon in achieving broadband roll-out in Wales. I hope that the Minister will carefully examine the situation in Wales, and that he will look again at how we can assist wireless provision, which will be one of the key aspects of achieving broadband roll-out in rural areas.
	I welcome the progress that has been made on this Bill, but I very much hope that Members on both sides of the House will support those who are trying to secure broadband access for some of the most remote parts of the United Kingdom and will acknowledge the need to act in the public interest. We must be aware that competition does not yet show signs that it will achieve that. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind as they try to meet their targets.

John Greenway: While we have been debating these important matters, I understand that Nasser Hussain, the England cricket captain, has resigned following a no result in the Zimbabwe-Pakistan cricket match, and that England are eliminated from the world cup. I hope that, on some future occasion, we might have the opportunity in Government time to debate the issue.
	First, I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) on new clause 2. I suggest to the Minister that nothing in the new clause is in any way at odds with Ofcom's duties under the Bill. On the contrary, all the key elements of new clause 2 are enshrined in the provisions of clauses 3 and 6, which relate to Ofcom's duties. Our new clause has four key elements.

Stephen Timms: I welcome the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. Will he tell us why the new clause is necessary, because, as he rightly says, the point is already well covered in the Bill?

John Greenway: I cannot tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, how grateful I am for the Minister's intervention, as that is precisely what I intend to do. He so clearly grasps the point that I need not dwell on it too much.
	To explain the point briefly, clause 6 requires Ofcom to reduce regulatory burdens and clause 3(1)(a) requires it to promote competition and to further the interests of consumers—there is no better way of doing that than bearing down on prices and the provision of high-quality services. Clause 3(1)(b) on securing the optimum use of wireless telegraphy must surely include the deployment of new telecommunications technologies.
	The Minister might argue, as he did in his intervention, that we do not need the new clause. However, new clause 2 adds something that is distinctly absent from the Bill: the two words that were pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)—"including broadband". This debate has shown not only that all Members on both sides of the House regard this as a crucial issue for their constituents—I can certainly reflect what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said about his constituency, which is precisely the position in my constituency of Ryedale. The real point, however, is that there is no specific reference to broadband in the Bill. We hammered away on that issue in Committee because it is a serious omission. The new clause gives the House the opportunity to correct that omission.

Chris Mole: Does the hon. Gentleman not consider broadband to be a telecommunications technology?

John Greenway: Many of the definitions in the Bill include or omit certain phraseology. We spent a lot of time on Report last Tuesday discussing whether music formed part of local material.

John Robertson: That is an important issue.

John Greenway: It is important, as the hon. Gentleman says.
	This debate has shown a growing sense among members of all parties that the provision of broadband is not being taken seriously enough. It is therefore important to make a specific reference to it in the Bill as part of Ofcom's general duties. I will say no more than that, suffice it to say that anyone listening to this important part of our deliberations cannot have failed to notice that, no matter which constituency hon. Members represent or to which political party they belong, there is a sense that not enough is being done to ensure that broadband is made available to more and more of our constituents. The importance that hon. Members have put on this issue makes it inconceivable that the Government would want to resist such a new clause.
	I want to deal with the issues raised by the Government's amendments—in particular Government amendment No. 215 to clause 3. Clause 3 sets out Ofcom's general duties, and the Government amendment alters the structure and emphasis of the clause in three important ways. I want to probe the Minister on the Government's thinking, and I would also like him to clarify some points.
	The amendment will for the first time impose a principal duty on Ofcom. There were once four duties of equal weight, as given in clause 3(1). However, under the amendment, in addition to Ofcom's duty, in carrying out its functions,
	"to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets, where appropriate by promoting competition",
	Ofcom must now
	"further the interests of the community as whole in relation to communications matters."
	The new wording replaces three of the four duties in clause 3(1). Those duties were:
	"to secure the optimal use for wireless telegraphy of the electromagnetic spectrum",
	"to secure the availability . . . of a wide range of television and radio services"
	and to secure the application of standards. Those three duties have been relegated to a proposed new subsection (1A), which sets out the things that Ofcom is required to secure in carrying out its principal duty. That is a significant departure from the Government's policy up to today, which has been to resist the introduction of a principal duty.
	In Committee, the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting reminded us that the Government's response to the Joint Committee's report stated:
	"'We are sure that the Committee will recognise how important it is that the duties properly reflect the breadth of all OFCOM's responsibilities, both economic and cultural, and follow the proposition set out in the White Paper that each duty is of equal weight.'"
	He also said:
	"I strongly believe that we should give a clear signal that no single duty under subsection (1) is more important than another; they are all equally important."
	He added:
	"Subsection (6) expressly enables Ofcom to resolve the conflict between duties in the way that it believes to be the best. That leaves it in control of the situation."
	He went on to say:
	"The Government have looked long and hard at clause 3, because, like other hon. Members, we recognised that we needed to get it right, and I believe that we have."
	Well, there we are—not any more. He has changed his mind. He continued:
	"It covers the breadth of Ofcom's responsibilities and reflects its role as an economic and cultural regulator. I believe that, in respect of the principles on which it is based and its drafting, the clause works for Ofcom and its stakeholders."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 10 December 2002; c. 74–81.]
	As we can see, the Government have radically changed their mind. The phrase
	"the community as a whole in relation to communications matters"
	adds a new and somewhat wider perspective to the principal duty than the reference only to consumers and competition. It is considerably different from the present wording of clause 3(1) and relegates certain specific considerations in relation to others that the Government have hitherto insisted were an integral part of their range of equal duties. Perhaps it is now a case of all duties being equal but some being more equal than others.

Nick Hawkins: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has alluded to Orwell, because the Government have very much introduced a piece of Orwellian newspeak. Does my hon. Friend have any suspicion about the reason for this sudden volte-face from equal duties to one primary duty? Does he think by any chance that there has been huge influence from Europe and that the Minister's officials did not agree with what he said in Committee and have tried to change the Bill at the last minute in the House?

John Greenway: On this occasion, I cannot go with my hon. Friend's conspiracy theory. The matter was debated at length in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) sadly cannot be here for this debate, but he made several comments about the issues that we are discussing. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) agrees with the rest of my hon. Friends to judge by their reaction to my remarks. They have grasped that this change at this very late stage radically alters the architecture of Ofcom's duties in a way that has far-reaching implications for the rest of the Bill.
	The second issue that I want to raise is the new duty to maintain a plurality of providers of television and radio. We need clarification from the Minister of the words in Government amendment No. 251 that refer to
	"the maintenance of a plurality of different television and radio services".
	That concept has hitherto been excluded from the Bill, but the provision may have a considerable impact on the way in which Ofcom deals with proposed mergers and acquisitions in the sector. The Minister owes us a detailed explanation about how the duty relates to the Government's newly revised framework for media ownership and control.
	In Committee, Conservative Members argued that there should be a greater reliance on competition and less reliance on rigid restrictions and limitations. Until today—I am assuming that the amendment will be accepted by the House—we had an underlying move towards greater reliance on competition but with specific limitations and restrictions in place. However, plurality and competition now conflict with the specific restrictions and limitations in the Bill.
	We know that the Government have decided that Channel 3 will be allowed to merge into a single company subject to general competition law, and that is a big qualification particularly in respect of television advertising. However, subject to that, the company will be allowed to merge into a single company that is owned by a single person or single organisation. Strictly speaking, that will represent a reduction in the plurality of Channel 3 providers from two main providers, Carlton and Granada, to one, with the smaller providers—Ulster, Scottish Media Group, Channel Television and others—perhaps being subsumed. Who knows whether that will happen even if it is not the proposal now? The Minister must tell us what the proposed new duty for Ofcom would mean for such a process. Is it possible that such a merger would be, after investigation, acceptable in the eyes of the Office of Fair Trading, but then rejected by Ofcom under clause 1(3) on the basis that it reduces the plurality of television providers? That is an extremely important question.
	Other broadcasters have raised similar concerns. The Commercial Radio Association has asked what impact the provision will have on the three-year ownership review process by which the Government have placed such great store. What if a merger were to reduce plurality—that is, the number of different providers of radio and television services—but improve the quantity, quality or range of programme content? The inclusion of the new duty may encourage Ofcom to value plurality for its own sake and to temper the priority that it previously would have given to the availability throughout the UK of a wide range of television and radio services which, taken as a whole, are of high quality and calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests, irrespective of the number of different providers.
	Similar questions apply to other scenarios. A purchase by a channel 3 owner or Channel 5, as permitted under the Government's liberalisation and subject of course to competition law scrutiny, would further reduce plurality, as would mergers or purchases involving other providers such as Disney, Viacom or BSkyB. In all instances, even if concerns under competition law were satisfied, the new duty will mean that residual doubts and uncertainties remain. It could give Ofcom the power to veto an acquisition by adding another layer of regulation to an area in which the Government have decided to introduce a more liberal regime. That appears to be taking away with one hand what they have given with the other.
	Thirdly, I turn to the new duty to secure the availability of a wide range of electronic communication services—another addition. It would be helpful if the Government could explain why they have seen fit, again at this late stage, to introduce that concept into this part of the Bill. Electronic communication services are one important element in a wide range of matters that Ofcom must deal with, but it is unclear why those services have been singled out for particular attention. To anticipate the kind of intervention that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath might have made had he not left the Chamber, where did that idea come from? I do not remember discussing it in Committee. It comes as a surprise to us that the Government have made these serious changes, which fundamentally alter the architecture of Ofcom's powers. The explanation in the Minster's letter fails to acknowledge the far-reaching nature of the amendments.
	I want briefly to mention two or three other Government amendments. Amendment No. 217 deals with Ofcom's annual report, enabling Ofcom to explain how it has resolved any conflicts between its duties. We discussed that extensively in Committee, and the amendment is welcome.
	Amendments Nos. 219 and 220 address matters that we raised in Committee. Amendment No. 219 deals with the problem that we identified concerning wording of the Bill that gold-plates some elements of the directive. Amendment No. 221 is one that I proposed in Committee to help to ensure that there is a real opportunity for self-regulation in advertising. I warmly welcome the fact that the Minister has on consideration accepted that amendment and proposes to include it in the Bill.

Richard Allan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) for giving us the opportunity to discuss broadband. This is the best chance that we have had to deal specifically with Ofcom's role in relation to broadband. I want to pick up on some of the comments made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who conveniently covered all points of the compass between them, and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). They raised important points about the way in which broadband is being rolled out.
	There is broad agreement on the general thrust of the new clause. However, I add a note of caution about the way in which the market mechanism and the regulation mechanism will work. The experience to date has been that the biggest advance in broadband roll-out occurred with BT's significant price drop on the wholesale cost of broadband services. That was in some doubt. Regulation rightly sets out that BT has a duty not to be involved in loss leading or to use its telephone customers to cross-subsidise its broadband customers. We could have a public policy objective of getting cheaper broadband services and a regulatory framework that dictates that the regulator must prevent that from happening. We have to be aware of the limits of the regulatory framework when it is applied in such a mechanistic way to determine what aspects of a service come from which pot.
	The hon. Member for South Suffolk made some good suggestions and was right to mention the transparency of costs. It is important that we understand the cost issues on which Ofcom will make the rulings that were carried out by Oftel. The hon. Gentleman suggested that BT should publish advance plans on its roll-out scheme for enabling ADSL exchanges. It would help to have a public debate on those instead of micro-decisions in individual areas.
	It seems that BT has realised that it is better to have 5 million wholesale broadband customers who buy their retail service from the likes of AOL and Freeserve, which have the reach to sell broadband nationally, rather than 500,000 broadband customers who buy both retail and wholesale from BT. Under the old model, BT wanted to maintain the complete value chain by offering retail broadband services. However, there has been a change in leadership and BT is trying to increase its wholesale customers. It has accepted that AOL and Freeserve, as retail customer-facing organisations, may leap over it in terms of numbers, but that is not a problem because BT will make money on the wholesale service.
	A specific problem remains, however, with the two products that BT offers: BT Openworld, which is its ISP, and the BT broadband only service, commonly called the bare-wire service. I am sure that all hon. Members have received complaints about the confusion that that causes. There is a genuine consumer issue about BT selling two products that are both called broadband from BT. One is an ISP-based service that is comparable to a service provided by Demon, Freeserve or AOL; the other is not. We need to tidy that up. There are also concerns about the possibility of cross-promotion by BT. People who choose to take their broadband services from another supplier still have a BT line, and I question the appropriateness of BT making a hard sell for its own retail broadband service via the billing mechanism, for instance. I accept that there are regulations that are intended to prevent that from happening, but the industry still raises concerns about the possibility of cross-selling.
	The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire mentioned the concerns of constituents who live just outside the footprint of the ADSL-enabled exchanges. There was a proposal to roll out broadband primarily by local loop unbundling in which other companies would be responsible for the infrastructure that would deliver the service the last few miles to people's houses. That fell down the list of priorities as the investment climate worsened and the ISPs did not have the cash to deliver the infrastructure. Many of them would now prefer BT to be responsible for all the infrastructure while they concentrate on retail services. However, local loop bypassing, which has a huge potential, is starting to take place, as we have heard, in the village of Bottisham. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire referred to the village of Milton outside Cambridge and the fact that Cambridge science park is located there. A large broadband pipe goes into the science park, so it is perfectly possible, as the hon. Gentleman started to say, for it to be made available to other people using wireless technologies. There are some great experiments going on. The Minister was at the ISPs' awards ceremony, where West Dorset Internet, a tiny ISP set up by Tim Snape, won an award as a broadband supplier. The company is extremely imaginative, and has come up with solutions using wireless technology to extend reach. In many areas, such solutions will be more attractive than satellite and other proposals.
	However, there are questions about regulation that need to be answered. Do we create a climate that encourages or discourages experimentation? If somebody has a broadband connection in their premises, under their contract they are not allowed to extend it outside those premises. We may need new forms of contract that encourage community groups to enter a community broadband contract. They would pay a fair price for the pipe that goes into the community system, but they would be able to do imaginative community outreach work. The hon. Member for Ceredigion talked about the radio spectrum and later, if we have time, we will talk about recognised spectrum access. A key question about such access is whether people will want a wireless local network and whether it will interfere with satellite systems.
	There are also questions about the spectrum sale, auctioning and licensing at the end of the spectrum, where people want to roll out local networks. Ofcom could have a significant role in creating the conditions for people to do more wireless networking or preventing them from doing so.

Chris Mole: Can I just explore with the hon. Gentleman the difficulty associated with his proposal to aggregate demand at the end of a broadband connection? Such connections are supplied by telecommunications operators based on the nature of expected traffic. It is not expected that users will constantly demand data at the full rate capability of the link. Such traffic will come in bursts. As more users are hooked to the end of a single link, demand is aggregated and traffic becomes continuous, so there are more implications for telecommunications operators' back systems. They can offer product at £29.99 because most of us will demand data, perhaps in large volumes, only for short periods.

Richard Allan: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right about the technical aspects, with which he is familiar. I am not suggesting that everyone who has a £30 a month connection should link their village into that single connection. I was trying to suggest that there is a role for new forms of fairly priced contract that allow 10, 15 or 20 users to hang off the end of a connection. Ofcom has a role in encouraging, rather than discouraging, the roll-out of the technology. We should applaud the experimentalism of the DIY approach taken by some people such as the Bottisham villagers. We should not encourage people to breach contracts, but we should encourage new uses of the technology and the imaginative search for forms of contract that allow such uses.
	However, if people come up with solutions, I fear that they may be knocked back and told by a telecommunications company, "You have to wait two years until we enable your exchange." If a solution is available today, people should be able to have it, because in the meantime they are missing out on huge opportunities. That is particularly true of local companies. The time taken by a local architect's business to upload and download technical drawings is a critical factor in its viability and competitiveness. If it can get quick access today, we should find a way of making that work, instead of being unimaginative and slowing things down.
	Finally, it is helpful that one of the amendments proposes that broadband should be written into the Bill. However, much of the work being done on broadband is taking place at a community level. The magazine Computing has set up a group with which I know the Minister is familiar and which is doing much good work. The broadband stakeholders group has been mentioned. The fact that a huge number of hon. Members have become engaged with technology issues through broadband because the public are asking us to be engaged in such issues means that the debate is far wider.
	I hope that as well as thinking about the Ofcom context, the Minister will assure us that he is considering the wider context. I hope that he will continue the dialogue, which has been constructive to date, with the wider industry and will respond positively to imaginative solutions that will enable broadband roll-out to occur much more quickly than would otherwise be the case.

Stephen Timms: I shall begin by speaking to the Government amendments. The Bill is a complex piece of legislation addressing individuals as citizens and as consumers. It is about Ofcom taking responsibility for economic and cultural matters. Ofcom's general duties are crucial to its work, so we have studied particularly carefully the wording of clause 3, how that works with other provisions in the Bill and how it will shape Ofcom's decision making. There was much discussion about that in Committee, there has been discussion in public consultation and it was a major theme of the pre-legislative scrutiny work. We have therefore decided to change the way in which clause 3 is structured to make the position clearer.
	Amendment No. 215 and the consequential amendments Nos. 216 and 218 are intended to remove any lingering doubt that the Bill will deliver our policy commitment to safeguard and further the interests of consumers and of citizens. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and for North Devon (Nick Harvey) who welcomed that change, which makes the position entirely clear.
	The amendment uses the expression "community as a whole" rather than "citizens". There was some suspicion among Opposition Members that the terminology had come from Europe, but I can assure them that that is not the case. We have used the expression "community as a whole" because the word "citizens" in legislation has connotations of nationality, which is not what we want in this context. The new wording meets the concerns expressed by a number of people in the debate over the past few months.
	The public policy interests are embedded in the legislation—for example, through the provisions on media literacy and the public service obligations. They are also inherent in the current drafting of clause 3, but we wanted to make the position more explicit. We have now achieved that. We want to be certain that in any circumstance Ofcom will be able to consider the interests of consumers and the wider community without being open to challenge.
	The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) commented on the plurality duty in subsection (1A). The media ownership rules in the Bill will ensure that there are a number of different providers of TV and radio services. The amendment will mean that Ofcom will take plurality as well as diversity into account in carrying out its functions, including reviewing the media ownership rules. That is the key significance of the amendment: it ensures that Ofcom will be able to consider plurality in reviewing the rules. The rules are clear, but because of the change, Ofcom will be able to take plurality into account. Those are significant changes. We already have a good Bill, but the amendments improve it.
	Amendment No. 217 follows one proposed by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). We said in Committee that we would respond with an appropriate amendment and we have done so. Ofcom will have to make some complex decisions and reconcile tensions between its general duties. The amendment will require Ofcom to include in its annual report a summary of such cases where they are important. That will provide observers with a valuable understanding of how Ofcom's decision making has developed. It will not be unduly bureaucratic for Ofcom but it will help to ensure that it is open and transparent.
	Amendments Nos. 219 and 220 to clause 4 again follow amendments proposed by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire in Committee. We accepted the principle of those amendments, which bring the sixth of the community obligations set out in the clause—the obligation to encourage standardisation—more precisely into line with the directive.
	The hon. Member for Ryedale has already correctly claimed credit for inspiring Government amendment No. 221. I am glad that he has acknowledged that it meets his objectives.
	The hon. Member for North Devon spoke to amendment No. 3 and welcomed Government amendment No. 215, which deals with the concern that underpinned that amendment.
	On amendment No. 151, the creativity and innovation drive of individuals in the communications industry must be one of the reasons for its success. In telecommunications, television and radio, very able people are working in the UK. That is why we have some world-class businesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) pointed out, the Bill contains provisions relating to employment in broadcasting. Clauses 24 and 327 require Ofcom to promote training, equality of opportunity between men and women and persons of different racial groups and the fair treatment of disabled persons in relation to employment with broadcasters. Those provisions are important in terms of the particular structure of public service broadcasting and in supporting greater diversity in programme making. A particularly large number of freelancers work in the broadcasting industry and there is a need to sustain the level of necessary skills development.
	Those are the particular circumstances in broadcasting that have led us to include those provisions in the Bill. We cannot extend them to the telecoms industry, not least because, under the regulatory regime permitted by the communications directives, Ofcom will not have power to impose any such obligations on communications providers. I am not suggesting that the position of telecommunications employees is not one of the most important issues for the industry—it clearly is. However, the responsibilities for employment rights and skills will rest not with Ofcom, but with other agencies and bodies.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Anniesland and for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) for drawing attention to those concerns. I point out that e-skills UK, which covers IT, telecommunications and call centres, is in the final stages of its development phase to become a new sector skills council. A decision on its application will be considered very soon. It will be an employer-led body that will bring together employers, trade unions and professional bodies in working with the Government to develop the skills that UK business needs to drive productivity and competitiveness in this sector. The Government are very active in that area and my hon. Friends were right to draw attention to its importance. However, the solution rests not with Ofcom, but elsewhere.
	For rather different reasons, I also oppose amendment No. 187, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North Devon. I do so not because I do not recognise the essential contribution of creators and performers in producing quality content—I certainly do—but because I believe that requiring Ofcom to consider them in carrying out all its functions would place their interests above the general public interest in high-quality content. That would be a mistake. Regulating for the quality of content will draw on the work of creators and performers for the benefit of viewers and listeners, whose interests must be to the fore.
	Clause 257 requires Ofcom to review public service broadcasting, including the quality of programme making and the professional skill applied in making programmes. We are also safeguarding the amount of original production in UK television and strengthening the contribution of the independent productions sector. Those and other specific measures will be more effective and better targeted than the approach taken in amendment No. 187.
	New clause 27 and amendments Nos. 188 and 189 propose to give creators a statutory role within Ofcom. Hon. Members who followed the debates in Committee will be aware that the Government are committed to giving Ofcom flexibility to organise itself in the way that best allows it to deliver the objectives that we are setting out in the Bill. We know from experience elsewhere that that flexibility is essential. We need to be careful not to over-specify the way in which Ofcom is organised.
	The content board—the only element of the internal structure of Ofcom that is required under the Bill—is there to represent the public interest in the content of broadcasting services. It is not there to represent the interests of any particular group in the industry. That is an important safeguard.
	Amendment No. 189 specifies that Ofcom may authorise the establishment of a creators panel, but Ofcom already has the power to authorise the establishment of any committee to advise the content board, so the amendment is unnecessary, as is new clause 27, for the same reason.
	Much of this interesting debate has been about new clause 2, which was moved by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). The hon. Member for Ryedale assisted the House by pointing out that there is nothing in that new clause that is not already in the Bill, except for the specific reference to broadband. The Bill refers to promoting innovation and encouraging investment—broadband will certainly be the beneficiary of that—but it is important for it not only to address what is undoubtedly one of the most important topics that we face, but to make sense in 10, 20 or 30 years.
	Extending the availability of broadband is one of our top priorities, and I welcome the fact that there has been so much interest in that during the debate. I also welcome the growing political pressure on broadband availability. Availability continues to grow, and the point has been made that about 67 per cent. of UK households can access a terrestrial broadband service. That was right about three months ago, but the figure had reached 71 per cent. and rising at the end of last year. It is clear that it will reach 80 per cent. over the next year or two, but the big challenge will be how to get from 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. and over. We are working on that energetically. The point was also made that there are 1.4 million broadband connections in the UK, but that number is increasing at more than 30,000 a week, so we are well beyond it now.
	The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) asked me some particular questions, and he has been corresponding with me on how public service broadband capability will be achieved. There is the commitment that every school in the country will have broadband by 2006. The capacity will be at least 2 megabytes per second for every primary school and 8 megabytes per second for secondary schools. Those rates will be available symmetrically, which means that the discussion goes beyond what ADSL can deliver at present.
	It would not be sensible, however, for me to announce from the Dispatch Box precisely how that will be determined—how Overton primary school, for example, should be connected up. Equally, it would not be right for us to say to Overton primary school, "Go away and work it out for yourself." It is increasingly clear that we can make such decisions and plan a strategy for achieving public sector broadband connectivity right across a region.
	There are already regional broadband consortiums in education and we are considering how to bring the health service into the aggregation arrangements at regional level. Although scepticism has regrettably been expressed from the Conservative Benches about the effectiveness of the regional development agencies, we are seeing in a growing number of RDAs some imaginative and effective initiatives that will deliver broadband connectivity in every area that we are considering.

Richard Allan: The Government have the strategy of aggregation of Government broadband demand and a lot of faith is being placed in the fact that they have made the clear commitment that they will achieve a connection for Overton primary school, or wherever else, in the expectation that other people can work from it. Is the Minister confident that the combination of Treasury rules and the way in which Government have to tender for services will allow them to draw up contracts with added public benefit, or will the Government end up with tight contacts saying, "If you want the cheapest price, to Overton primary school and no further."?

Stephen Timms: I am confident that we will be able to achieve suitable contracts. There is work to be done, but we are doing that work and I am confident that we can deliver. Of course, the Prime Minister also articulated a commitment that every school would have internet access. We have delivered that commitment, and we will deliver this one as well.
	The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire made some interesting points about Bottisham, about which I have heard a good deal in the past couple of months. I regret that it was not possible to have the meeting envisaged—if I remember rightly, the e-envoy was due to visit in the autumn—but I welcome further discussion of what is happening there. Perhaps there might be a visit as well, at some point. 4.15 pm
	There is much to be done, but I do not think we need to amend the Bill. I agree with what has been said about the importance of competition: we need competition to drive broadband into every part of the country, just as it has driven mobile communications into every part of the country. That is, of course, the basis of the Bill. The regulator will have all the powers that the hon. Gentleman advocated, as his colleagues who sat through the Committee stage will tell him; but we want the legislation to last, and I therefore think our current formula is right.
	The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) mentioned the severe problem of call centre queueing. Clause 124 allows Ofcom to act against any person who persistently misuses a network service to cause annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety, or increased blood pressure. The measure is aimed principally at those who make calls, but I suppose that in an extreme case consideration could be given to its use against a recipient such as a call centre. The hon. Gentleman's aspirations could be met by the Bill, although whether that will indeed be possible may be debated elsewhere.

Tim Yeo: This has been an excellent debate, whose breadth reflects that of the Bill itself.
	I join my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) in acknowledging the efforts made by BT over the last year to speed up access to broadband. Perhaps I did not make that clear earlier. My right hon. Friend spoke of the difficulties experienced by rural communities, and mentioned the Prime Minister's proposal to connect schools. The Minister seems unwilling, or possibly unable, to explain exactly how that will happen. I only hope that his confidence will be borne out in practice.
	The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) is not unlike my own. Its problems are typical of those in rural areas, and the prospects of any real progress are bleak for some of his constituents in the more remote villages.
	The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), with whom I had the pleasure of visiting Caernarfon recently, described his frustration at the inadequate access to broadband in his constituency. I welcome his recognition that broadband is part of the infrastructure. I dare say his constituency is about as well served as mine by some of the transport infrastructure as well. Let us hope that broadband will not follow that model.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) explained, I thought rather eloquently, why the new clause was necessary. I am sorry that the Minister did not entirely accept what he said. My hon. Friend made a number of powerful points about other issues, on which I will not comment except to say that I did not think all of them were dealt with adequately by the Minister.
	I welcomed the support of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) for the new clause. I hope it will be reflected in the Lobby shortly. I particularly welcomed his recognition of the need for more transparency.
	The Minister spoke of the continuing progress in extending broadband. I acknowledge that the figures are increasing more quickly than they were, but for many people that is not enough. Not even the promise of a visit from the Minister will satisfy all broadband users.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 288.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 12
	 — 
	Restrictive Covenants Affecting Freehold Property

'(1) This section applies where by virtue of a restrictive covenant the owner of any premises is restricted, either absolutely or to any extent—
	(a) in choosing electronic communications services or a supplier of such services, or
	(b) with respect to any other electronic communications matter.
	(2) Where this section applies, the covenant, to the extent that it restricts the owner of premises as mentioned in subsection (1)—
	(a) if it requires (expressly or otherwise) the consent of any person to be obtained before anything to which the restriction relates is done, shall have effect as if it required that consent not to be unreasonably withheld; and
	(b) in any other case, shall have effect as if it required the consent of the person entitled to the benefit of the restrictive covenant to the doing of anything to which the restriction relates not be unreasonably withheld.
	(3) Subsections (5) to (7) of section 130 shall apply in relation to a restriction falling within subsection (2) of this section as those subsections apply in relation to a prohibition or restriction falling within subsection (1) or (2) of section 130.
	(4) Section 392 applies to the powers of OFCOM to make orders under this section.'.—[Mr. Whittingdale.]
	Brought up, and read the First time. 4.30 pm

John Whittingdale: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 103, in page 119, line 14 [Clause 130], leave out
	'for a year or more'.
	No. 104, in page 119, line 18 [Clause 130], leave out
	'for a year or more'.
	No. 105, in page 119, line 27 [Clause 130], leave out subsection (4) and insert—
	'(4) A provision falling within subsection (2)(a) or (b)—
	(a) if it requires (expressly or otherwise) the consent of any person to be obtained before anything to which the provision relates is done, shall have effect as if it required that consent not to be unreasonably withheld;
	(b) in any other case, shall have the effect as if it required the consent of the lessor, licensor or other party to the agreement to the doing of anything to which the provision relates not to be unreasonably withheld.'.
	No. 106, in page 119, line 30 [Clause 130], leave out from 'with' to end of line 31 and insert 'an electronic communications matter'.
	No. 107, in page 119, line 38 [Clause 130], leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
	'with respect to any matter by virtue of which it falls within subsection (1) of (2).'.
	No. 108, in page 119, line 44, [Clause 130] at end insert
	'of his choice (so that he is not confined to selecting a person with an interest in any premises or to a person selected by such a person).
	(5A) The question whether consent has been unreasonably withheld in any case falling to be determined in accordance with subsection (5) shall be determined by OFCOM.
	(5B) Where OFCOM has made such a determination, proceedings for breach of any provision of a lease or other agreement falling within subsection (2), which consists of or includes failure to obtain consent before doing anything to which that provision relates, shall not be instituted or continued in any court.'.
	No. 109, in page 119, line 45, [Clause 130], leave out subsection (6).
	Government amendment No. 234.
	Amendment No. 110, in page 120, line 23, [Clause 130], leave out subsection (9).
	Amendment No. 102, in page 347, line 15 [Clause 399], at end insert—
	'(3A) Before making an order under subsection (2) appointing a day for the coming into force of section [restrictive covenants affecting freehold property], the Secretary of State shall consult OFCOM and such other persons as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate'.

John Whittingdale: New clause 12 and the associated amendments relate to the provisions dealing with restrictions in leases and licences. In the main, they are covered by clause 130, which we have not discussed yet because of the Government's timetable motion in Committee.
	The new clause and the amendments would extend choice to people who cannot put up satellite dishes or aerials on their properties. At present, many people in leased and rented properties are prevented from obtaining television and telephony services from the provider of their choice because of restrictions in their leases or tenancy agreements. Owners of freehold properties caught by restrictive covenants also suffer from the same problem.
	For example, I understand that people living in Milton Keynes cannot put an aerial or satellite dish on their houses, whether they own or rent them. In essence, they are forced to get their television from ntl, the cable company. Milton Keynes residents are thereby denied a choice that they might want to make, and are dependent on one provider. As illustrated by the demise of Aberdeen Cable, when people were left without telephony, that can lead to unfortunate consequences.
	Landlords, landowners and property developers sometimes impose the restrictions that I have described, for a variety of reasons. They may consider that installing a satellite dish could damage the fabric of a building, or make that building a less desirable place to live. In other cases, however, the imposition of such conditions may merely be force of habit. Restrictive covenants often find their way into standard leases and other freehold agreements and are put forward by the lessor or vendor, or his solicitors, with no real consideration as to their necessity, only the desire to retain control over the premises.
	Obviously, lessees and owners can try to have such restrictions removed, but unless the landlord, or those with an interest in the covenant, willingly agree—in which case, why were the restrictions imposed in the first place?—the process of removing them can be extremely slow, expensive and cumbersome, and might even involve the Lands Tribunal and arcane bits of law.

Michael Fabricant: For the exclusion of doubt, will my hon. Friend confirm that the new clause does not apply to conservation areas, such as those in Lichfield and other parts of the country, where, due to the antiquity of the buildings, a satellite dish would be undesirable on the main elevation?

John Whittingdale: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall deal later with circumstances in which it might be deemed reasonable to apply such restrictions. If it was reasonable, we should certainly not argue for their removal. I hope that provides my hon. Friend with some reassurance.
	In general, lessees and owners will want to continue to live in their accommodation so they are not likely to want to upset their neighbours or irritate their landlord by breaching leases or covenants. Given the risks and bureaucracy involved, and the wish not to cause too much trouble, lessees and owners are often denied a choice of supplier for television or telephony due to such restrictions. Indeed, in future that might lead to a challenge under article 10 of the European convention on human rights. That has not yet happened, but it is possible to envisage circumstances in which it might.
	Such restrictions could be extremely unhelpful in respect of the Government's declared objective of digital switchover—the time when it will be possible to switch off analogue television. They could also affect another Government objective, which we have just spent considerable time debating, of achieving higher levels of broadband penetration and internet access. For example, if a householder was unable to receive digital terrestrial television and there was no cable in the street, he would be unable to switch over to digital television unless he was allowed to erect a satellite dish.
	Although clause 130 deals with those restrictions and it certainly has good intentions, it does not go far enough to give lessees and tenants true freedom, in practice, to choose their television or telephony supplier and to make it easier for them to exercise that choice. In particular, it does not address the issue of restrictive covenants in freehold property. That is the purpose of the new clause.
	I also want to speak to amendments Nos. 103 to 110, which relate to the position of lessees. Clause 130 permits lessors not to grant the occupier's request to consent regarding any relevant restriction, provided that the lessor does not act unreasonably. That point deals with the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). It seems an appropriate balance between the rights of lessors and lessees, but how can we determine whether the lessor is acting unreasonably? Subsection (5) addresses that question, but it does not actually specify who should make the determination. The assumption must be that the matter would be for the courts, even though the clause does not specify that. So the result may well be that it is necessary to undertake fairly protracted and perhaps expensive judicial proceedings to secure the lifting of a restriction.
	Clause 130 therefore maintains a situation in which the onus is placed on the lessee or tenant to request the lessor's waiver of a restriction. However, it turns an absolute restriction into only a qualified one, the contractual effect of which is that if the lessor withholds his consent unreasonably, it puts him in breach of contract. That does not give the lessee carte blanche to proceed as though the restriction were not there. Instead, the lessee would need to take action against the lessor for breach of contract via judicial proceedings, which, as I have said, could well be protracted and costly. As a result, many lessees may decide that such action is too troublesome to pursue.
	We therefore suggest that a simpler and less daunting process is needed, and amendment No. 108 would amend clause 130(5), so that the question whether or not something is unreasonable is determined by Ofcom in accordance with that subsection and, where Ofcom acts, proceedings should not need to take place in the courts. So if Ofcom decided that a lessor has unreasonably withheld his consent, the lessee may proceed as though the consent had been given and that would not put the lessee in breach of his contract with the lessor.
	Amendment No. 108 would also amend clause 130(5) to introduce the element of choice of supplier in line with subsection (1). Without that amendment, the lessee could not be denied access to an electronic communications network or service, but he may have no choice at all as to his supplier.
	Amendment No. 105 would simplify clause 130(4) in relation to subsection (2) and, in particular, tie subsection (4) to the concept of electronic communication matters. Amendment No. 106 is rather more limited, but it is designed for the same purpose. It would ensure that subsection (4) used the same wording as subsection (2), to which it relates. As I have said, subsection (4) refers to "an electronic communications service", whereas subsection (2) refers to "an electronic communications matter".
	I understand that, in subsection (2), it is envisaged that restrictions may apply to a broader range of matters than the choice of service provider, which is dealt with in subsections (1) and (3). Electronics communications matters are defined in subsection (7) and include, for example, the installation of aerials or satellite dishes and associated cabling. In some cases, that will affect parts of a property that are not occupied by a lessee—an issue that is dealt with in subsection (4). So clause 130(4)(b) has to be amended to give practical effect to subsection (2).
	Amendment No. 107 would simplify subsection (5), by deleting the duplicating references to electronic communications matters and electronic communications services in paragraph (a) and (b) and tying that subsection to the relevant paragraphs in subsections (1) and (2).
	Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 remove the references to "a year or more" in subsection (2). Given that subsection (1) contains no equivalent minimum requirement on the length of the lease in respect of restrictions relating to services, it is difficult to understand why such a requirement should be imposed under subsection (2), which deals with electronic communications matters. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain the rationale for that discrepancy between the two subsections.
	As I said at the start, restrictive convenants are often imposed in freehold agreements, and there is no justification in our view to treat them differently from leases. That is the purpose of new clause 12, which would introduce similar arrangements to those in clause 130 to prohibit restrictions in covenants affecting freehold property.
	Finally, amendment No. 102 would place on the Secretary of State a requirement to consult those people who appear to be appropriate before clause 130 comes into force. Therefore, I hope that the Government will look kindly on those suggestions.

Stephen Timms: First, I wish to say that Government amendment No. 234 will amend the Bill to take account of Scots law, by adding the Scots law terminology in relation to the definition of a lease contained in clause 130.
	In relation to the other amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), I shall start by outlining briefly the purpose of the clause. Essentially, it re-enacts, with some updating and improvement, section 96 of the Telecommunications Act 1984, which was aimed at stopping landlords using restrictive terms in leases unreasonably in relation to the running of telecommunications systems or access to telecommunications services by lessees. That provision has now been extended to include restrictions that limit a lessee's choice of electronic communications service provider to their landlord or a person selected by their landlord. It is intended to follow, as far as possible, what is currently provided for under existing telecommunications licences, which will, of course, cease under the new general authorisation arrangements in the Bill.
	In relation to tenants' access to electronic communications services, clause 130(4)(a) and (b) deal with restrictive provisions in leases or premises arrangements, as they apply to things done inside a building, or for purposes connected with a provision to the lessee of such services. It is drawn widely to make it unlikely that any kind of electronic communications matter of any relevance to the lessee could fail to be caught by one or other of those subsections. With the amendment to the definition of electronic communications apparatus that I propose to move today, that would include restrictions relating to the installation of apparatus such as satellite dishes when such installation was connected with the provision of an electronic communications service to a lessee. I believe that the clause in its current form is sufficient to ensure that tenants' right of access to electronic communications services, and their freedom of choice in relation to their supplier, is not unreasonably curtailed by their landlord.
	Let me deal in a little more detail with the amendments one by one. Amendments Nos. 103 and 104, as the hon. Gentleman explained, would apply the clause to leases or premises-related agreements running for any period of time, as opposed to only those of a year or more. The restriction of a year or more follows section 96 of the Telecommunications Act 1984, which is a reasonable threshold at which the clause should bite. It is consistent with what was on the statute book previously. Under amendment No. 108, the key principle, as the hon. Gentleman explained, would become not just freedom to secure access but freedom of choice of supplier. I am not against the substance of that broader principle, but I am not certain that a change in the principle is needed. The removal of unnecessary restrictions on a lessee's choice of supplier is already adequately addressed in the clause. If I am missing something in that regard, I would be interested to see a little more detail on the issue. The two new subsections added by the rest of the amendment would make a significant change in assigning to Ofcom a role that would otherwise fall to the courts in considering the test of reasonableness. My view is that the courts should consider the test, and that that is not an appropriate role for Ofcom.
	Amendment No. 109 directly addresses the concern raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). It would remove the power that Ofcom has under subsection (6) to exclude any kind of restrictive provision from the scope of the clause. That would be wrong for the reason that he suggested: there could be occasions when restrictions are reasonable, such as preserving the character of a conservation area. No previous experience exists of how these provisions will work, because the provision of the Telecommunications Act on which the proposal is based was never brought into force. Perhaps it would therefore be wise to retain the current flexibility to make exemptions, for the reason that the hon. Gentleman stated, and to see how that works.
	Amendment No. 110, by deleting subsection (9), would apply the clause automatically to any lease or agreement granted or entered into before the commencement of the section, as well as to new ones. It is an important safeguard that Ofcom has the discretion to determine whether the section should have effect in relation to any pre-existing leases. I therefore suggest that the power needs to be retained.
	I can understand why the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford has proposed new clause 12. It would extend clause 130, which applies to leasehold and similar tenures, to cover any restrictive covenants affecting freehold property. There would certainly be logic in extending the arrangements in that way, but we have to be cautious. Making changes in property law is a hazardous undertaking, affecting the rights of property owners—possibly significantly. Changes made with the best of intentions may have quite unintended consequences. I can understand the argument for making changes, but I am not sure how serious and pressing the issue is in practice. However, if we were to make changes, they would need to be carefully and fully considered and consulted on. The hon. Gentleman may accept that that would take significantly longer than the time that will be available to us during the passage of this Bill.
	The hon. Gentleman raises interesting points and there is potential for extension in future. The best reassurance I can give him is that we will review this issue in our review of the working of the new provisions in the Bill.

John Whittingdale: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Of course, I accept that tinkering with property law should be approached with some trepidation—although clause 130 does, in fact, tinker with some property law. If there are problems to do with freeholds and restricted covenants, the Minister may reconsider the issue if we are able to supply specific instances. That also applies to some of the other points in our amendments to which the Minister responded.
	I am disappointed that the Minister does not want to streamline the procedure by giving the responsibility to Ofcom rather than the courts. I can understand why he prefers the courts, but there is no doubt that that will act as a disincentive in some ways. Nevertheless, the Minister's remarks have been helpful in clarifying the Government's intentions. At this stage, we will not press this new clause and the other amendments in the group. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 19
	 — 
	National Advisory Committees

'(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to establish and maintain National Advisory Committees for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
	(2) The Chairman and membership of these committees shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.
	(3) In making such appointments in respect of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State shall seek nomination from the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly respectively.
	(4) The National Advisory Committees may consider and advise on all aspect of OFCOM's work in respect of their individual territories.
	(5) The National Advisory committees may issue such recommendations to OFCOM or the Secretary of State with respect to their territories as they see fit.
	(6) The National Advisory Committees shall produce an annual report on their activities.'.—[Pete Wishart.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Pete Wishart: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment No. 206, in page 3, line 48 [Clause 3], at end insert
	'including through representations made by the devolved administrations of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland'.
	Amendment No. 207, in page 4, line 24 [Clause 3], at end insert—
	'(6) In performing their duties under this section OFCOM shall have a duty to consult with the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly over matters of specific concern to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.'.

Pete Wishart: We consider new clause 19 and amendments Nos. 206 and 207 to be modest and reasonable. They would ensure one thing—that the devolved institutions are fully engaged in the new environment that will be established once the Bill is enacted. We were disappointed that the devolved institutions were, in effect, locked out when the Bill was published. The new clause and the amendments seek to address that deficit, but they fall way short of our ideals and ambitions for broadcasting in Scotland—the full devolution of broadcasting powers to the Scottish Parliament, as initially envisaged in the Scotland Act 1998. Of course, we realise that we will not achieve that; what we want to achieve with the new clause and the amendments is that the distinct broadcasting and media environment in Scotland is addressed.
	After all the consideration of this Bill—whether in discussions of the draft Bill, in pre-legislative scrutiny, or in the Standing Committee—this is our last opportunity to ensure that the devolved institutions have a voice in the new broadcasting regime. We were immensely disappointed that, when the Ofcom board was established, it contained no representatives from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. We could not secure a place at the top table. If broadcasting could not be devolved, we should have been given the second-best option: a place at the top table for all the nations of the United Kingdom.
	The establishment of the new Ofcom board has resulted in a diminution in our influence in the broadcasting regime. Previously, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland had a place on the Independent Television Commission, just as we had a place on most of the regulatory bodies. We were confident of progress on this issue, because we had powerful and influential friends who supported us. First among them was Scotland's First Minister, Jack McConnell. He was rightly concerned that the "cultural and democratic dimension" of Scottish broadcasting be protected under the new regime. He was so concerned that he wrote twice to the Secretary of State for Scotland, but he did not even get a reply on either occasion. When he eventually received a reply, he was fobbed with the offer of places on the content board and the consumer panel, and with a vague pledge to establish Ofcom offices in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
	Like us, the First Minister agreed that Scottish listeners and viewers should be represented at the highest possible level to defend aspects that are peculiar to Scotland, such as devolved and regional television programmes, our national and regional news coverage as well as the Gaelic service and our dynamic media sector. He was convinced that they needed protecting, and rightly so. However, is it not a pity that his London-based colleagues could not be convinced? Is it not a pity that Scotland's champion in the Cabinet could not be convinced and was working not for the Scottish interests but against them? More than anything, that convinces us that the Scotland Office and the Secretary of State's post should be abolished and that the money secured should be put into front-line services in Scotland.
	I read the transcript of the Committee proceedings, and I do not know whether it was better to be involved in the Committee or to read the report. However, I saw that six Labour Members were on the Committee and none of them supported the case for an enhanced role for Scotland in the new broadcasting environment. All of them supported a diminished role for Scotland.
	Given that we shall experience a diminishment in our influence in the new regime, we tabled the new clause and amendments to try to get not the best solution for Scotland and not even the best solution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom context; we seek a very poor third choice, which is simply that the devolved institutions have a role in the workings of Ofcom. Instead of being enabled to, Ofcom should be compelled to establish national advisory committees in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We want better integration between Ofcom and the devolved institutions.
	As a matter of good practice, Ofcom should consult the devolved bodies anyway, and I understand that David Currie has had communications with the devolved Assemblies. However, the Bill should make it clear that that should happen and Ofcom should receive direction on the type of consultation that it should have with the devolved Governments. Amendments Nos. 206 and 207 try to deal with that point.
	Amendment No. 207 states:
	"Ofcom shall have a duty to consult with the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly over matters of specific concern to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland."
	What on earth is wrong with that? It is not as though we are asking the Scottish Parliament to compel Ofcom to do anything in particular. We do not even say that Ofcom must agree with the Scottish Parliament. The amendment merely asks for Ofcom to consult the Scottish Parliament. I do not see the problem with such a demand.
	New clause 19(1) states:
	"It shall be the duty of OFCOM to establish and maintain National Advisory Committees for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."
	The committees would assist Ofcom with its work in the devolved institutions. They would review its work and suggest ways forward in the nations of the United Kingdom. We also ask Ofcom to produce an annual report for consideration by the devolved Governments. The committees would be independent of Government and would be appointed by the relevant Secretary of State. That would introduce an element of citizenship—an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) constantly raises—in Ofcom's working, and that must be welcome.
	Our proposals are sensible and reasonable. As I have said, Scotland has a distinctive broadcasting environment, so it is sensible to have a distinct body that could communicate and advise about the distinct issues that will arise within the nations of the United Kingdom. The new clause and amendments simply seek to establish that Ofcom would operate under the Bill in ways that would replicate or extend the pattern of representation that we had in the past.

Simon Thomas: My hon. Friend has support from an unexpected quarter. I have with me the Welsh Assembly Government's current position on the Bill that was dated January 2003. The Welsh Assembly Government are, of course, a Labour-Liberal Democrat Assembly Government, but the document states:
	"Along with the Scottish and Northern Ireland Executives, the Assembly Government asked for a designated member for Wales on Ofcom's central board. This was rejected. The lack of a designated member for Wales effectively reduces Wales's voice at the UK level and denies Wales an all-important part in the strategic leadership role of the board."
	Surely, if an Assembly Government asks for something from a Government in Westminster with the same political complexion, we should expect some leeway and an agreement to be hammered out. Why has that not happened?

Pete Wishart: I wish that I could answer my hon. Friend's question. Perhaps the Welsh Assembly Government were desperate to fall in line with what was requested from Scotland, which was almost identical. I understand that a similar request was made from Northern Ireland. What I do not understand—I share my hon. Friend's exasperation—is why it was rejected here. Why did Labour members of the Committee object? That baffles me entirely.

Alan Reid: I draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend to the fact that the Governments in Scotland and Wales are of a different political complexion from the Government here. There are Liberal Democrat Members in those Governments, which is why they are better.

Pete Wishart: I wish that I could concur with the hon. Gentleman, but he will excuse me if I do not endorse that view.
	All we are asking is to be given the level of representation that we have under the existing regime. These modest amendments attempt to address the rebalancing between the nations of the United Kingdom and the establishment of the Ofcom board. It is neither the best solution nor the second best—it is a poor third solution, but at least it would do something to ensure that the nations of the United Kingdom have a voice in the new communications regime.

John Robertson: I had intended not to take part in this debate, but merely to make interventions, but the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) threw out a line and I bit. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is not being very friendly given that I am about to support much of what he said. The fact that there were so many Scottish Labour Members on the Committee meant that Scotland was well represented. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) will testify to the fact that we spoke together on many clauses. My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) and the hon. Member for Ceredigion spoke about Gaelic and Welsh language matters. It is therefore somewhat disingenuous to say that we did not do our bit for Scotland or, for that matter, Wales or Northern Ireland—I spoke about Northern Ireland myself.

Andrew Robathan: It was a pleasure to have the hon. Gentleman on the Committee, but it would be fair to say that altogether the six Scottish Members probably spoke for about one hundredth of the time. As the Committee had only 26 members, they should have spoken for 25 or 20 per cent. of the time.

John Robertson: After an intervention like that, it is probably not surprising that we did not speak for longer, unlike Conservative Front Benchers, who overdid it by repeatedly labouring the point on many occasions.
	I accept the basic argument that it is important that the regions, not only Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, are represented as nations. In Committee, we had the argument about regions and nations. It is important to have such recognition. Opposition Members may remember, however, that we also argued in Committee about the size of Ofcom. Ofcom is a completely different kind of body from previous bodies such as Oftel. If it represented everything in terms of regions and nations, as well as every single aspect of communications in the tier 1 hierarchy, its size would be unworkable, to say the least.
	The hon. Member for North Tayside is right that David Currie said that he would look favourably upon Scotland and the other two nations when he considered the makeup of committees for the regions, and he has stated that he will consult the Scottish Executive on that matter. That answers some of the hon. Gentleman's questions. He will not get everything that he wants, but the Ofcom chairman is making the right noises. It is not fair to say that there is a diminished role for Scotland within Ofcom, given that five bodies have been incorporated into the one. I should like a Scot and someone from each region to serve on the board, but that cannot happen. It is not right to claim that because Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland are not represented, the system is unfair. We account for only one ninth of the population, so if there are fewer than nine people on the board, someone has to suffer.

Simon Thomas: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. However, in the Standing Committee on the Office of Communications Act 2002, which established Ofcom, I tabled an amendment to increase Ofcom's membership from nine to a figure to be determined by the Secretary of State. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about the relationship between the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales and Whitehall? It is a much-vaunted relationship and we are told that a Labour Executive in both places leads to a better working relationship. So when those Executives say not once, not twice, but three times that they want such changes to be included in the framework of this Bill, does he not think that we, as UK MPs who legislate for the UK as a whole, should listen to them?

John Robertson: As I said, not everyone can be included on the Ofcom board. It is for Ofcom to decide whether to appoint a Scot, a Welshman or an Irishman. The board would have to be bigger if the devolved Parliaments were to be represented. We had a long discussion about Ofcom's size in Committee. It was originally going to have only three members. We cannot continue to increase it because it will become cumbersome and will not work. We want less regulation, not more. A bigger board would mean more people to put forward ideas and a greater number of arguments. That would stop it reaching a reasonable decision. A regional board could deal with local decisions. David Currie was happy to have that arrangement. In fact, he insisted that it was important and it is being considered.
	Scotland has diverse communication and entertainment needs. It is important that we are represented at a certain level, but if a Scot, a Welshman and an Irishman serve on Ofcom, eight ninths of the country would be represented by only two people who could also be Scottish, Welsh or Irish. It is not the nationality that counts; what matters is that Ofcom works and the interests of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and all the regions of England are well looked after. That is the most important thing.

Alan Reid: I support new clause 19 and amendments Nos. 206 and 207. It is correct that Ofcom is a UK-wide regulatory body, because it is self-evident that broadcasting and communication affects the whole of the UK. However, some aspects of broadcasting affect Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland differently from England, so it is also correct that the system of advisory bodies, consultation and representation proposed in the amendments should be included in the Bill. For example, the political and news coverage in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is different because of the presence of the devolved Parliaments and Administrations in those countries. In addition, Scotland will have the Gaelic media service and Wales will have various Welsh language services. We need to take care of those different concerns in Scotland and Wales.
	Rural issues affect Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland much more than they affect England. I accept that the difficulty of accessing broadband is also a problem for rural areas of England, but the low population density in Scotland means that the problem is more prominent there. The sparsity of population in the highlands makes it difficult to persuade BT to enable exchanges for broadband. The threat of the analogue switch-off affects far more people in the highlands of Scotland than elsewhere, as many villages in highland glens surrounded by high mountains rely on self-help relay schemes to receive television signals.
	Because of those issues and similar ones, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have different needs, and I hope that the Government accept the amendments. I do not see how they can possibly oppose the system of advisory bodies, representations and consultations that they propose. Surely, that is good Government practice, so I hope that the Government will accept them.

Stephen Timms: In Committee, a similar amendment to new clause 19 was eloquently moved by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) and debated, but he could not persuade us of its merits. My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting pointed out to hon. Members at the time that it is essential to bear in mind the fact that the vast majority of Ofcom's functions and responsibilities do not relate to devolved matters. I appreciate that there are areas of overlap with devolved matters, but measures are in place to ensure that the interests of the nations and regions are taken into account. There is therefore no need for committees such as those proposed in the new clause.

Simon Thomas: I should like to make two points. First, there is a material difference between these amendments and those that I tabled in Committee, where I proposed that those bodies review Ofcom's work. The Minister will note that my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) is not making such a proposal—the committees would be advisory and would not deal with statutory legislation.
	Secondly, how would the Minister react if the Welsh and the Scottish Executives set up their own bodies, as they are perfectly entitled to do, to provide advice on Ofcom's work in Wales and Scotland? That would be—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is getting rather lengthy for an intervention. I think that the Minister has got the point.

Stephen Timms: The matter is entirely for those Executives. However, the House should acknowledge the fact that the Bill specifically addresses those concerns. The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) spoke about the devolved Administrations having a diminished role, but that is not the case at all, and is a mistaken characterisation of the Bill. We have included a specific provision, clause 1, which requires Ofcom to establish and maintain offices in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. The hon. Gentleman referred to a vague provision; clearly, he has not read clause 1, which includes specific requirements. The content board and the consumer panel will have designated members who can represent the interests of people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as set out in clause 11. Ofcom has started to look for people to fill those positions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) referred to the fact that we are exploring consultative arrangements to support the national representatives on the content board and the consumer panel, and there will be discussions between officials, devolved Administrations and Ofcom. Ofcom will also agree memorandums of understanding with the relevant Secretaries of State on issues such as consultation on national appointments; the holding of regular meetings with the devolved Administrations; and the production of an account in Ofcom's annual report of its activities in the nations. The Bill now fully addresses the concerns that the hon. Member for North Tayside and others have expressed in debate.
	On amendment No. 206, Ofcom is already required under clause 331 to have regard to the different interests of the various parts of the UK in carrying out its duties. The clause ensures that Ofcom will bear those interests in mind throughout its deliberations. The Bill does not specify how those interests may be expressed, but it will be possible for the devolved Administrations, along with others, to make representations in their chosen form and for Ofcom to take them into account. There is no need to include in the Bill the specific provision proposed in amendment No. 206. Of course it is tempting to believe that Ofcom should be expanded to include a person to address each of the concerns specifically. In reality, Ofcom as a whole should address those concerns, and the Bill provides for that.

Pete Wishart: There seems to be a general misunderstanding about what we are trying to secure through the amendments. We want to improve the relationship between the devolved institutions and the Ofcom board. We are not asking for anything more than that. It is reasonable to suggest that for good governance there should be a proper relationship between the devolved institutions and the Ofcom board, and I do not see why there should be any objection to that.
	With regard to the number on the Ofcom board, I do not find the argument of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) convincing. Perhaps we should further reduce the number of Scottish MPs—I am sure that that would go some way towards improving the representation of Scotland. It is a ridiculous argument that representation would be improved by making a smaller body that does not take account of the interests of the different nations and regions of the United Kingdom.
	To suggest, as the Minister did, that we do not have a diminished role is utter nonsense. We had a place on the ITC board; we had a place on the other national regulatory boards; we do not have a place on the Ofcom board. That represents a diminution of our role and our influence in the new broadcasting regime. The Minister shakes his head, but how can he say—

Simon Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. When the Minister summed up his case, he said that the matters in question were not devolved, so why should there be representation for Wales? The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) pointed out that we had such representation. If it was okay pre-devolution for Wales and Scotland to be represented on those bodies, why is it not okay post-devolution?

Pete Wishart: As always, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Minister will have to consider that. We had a place pre-devolution. Now, somehow, because we have a Parliament and national assemblies, our role is diminished. I do not understand the Minister's argument. All the amendments seek to do is establish a proper relationship between the devolved institutions and the Ofcom board. I am disappointed that the Minister cannot accept that, so unfortunately we shall press the matter to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 47, Noes 415.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 20
	 — 
	Duty Relating to Disabled Users

'It shall be the duty of OFCOM to encourage electronic communications network operators and terminal equipment manufacturers to cooperate in order to facilitate access by disabled users to electronic communications services.'.— [Mr. Simon Thomas.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Simon Thomas: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment No. 209, in page 61, line 44 [Clause 61], at end insert—
	'(e) apparatus for endusers with disabilities, which is capable of being used in connection with an electronic communications service.'.
	Amendment No. 70, in page 136, line 23 [Clause 149], at end insert—
	'(d) the need to ensure sufficient spectrum is available for the transmission of audiodescription, a textbased teletext service and other services designed to meet the needs of disabled people.'.
	Amendment No. 71, in page 137, line 35 [Clause 151], at end insert—
	'(6) In exercising his powers under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to ensure sufficient spectrum is made available for the transmission of audiodescription, a textbased teletext service and other services designed to meet the needs of disabled people.'.

Simon Thomas: New clause 20 is intended to ensure the implementation of a key facet of the European Union framework directive—the importance of regulators encouraging network operators and terminal equipment manufacturers to co-operate in order to facilitate disabled users' access to electronic communication services. We need to bridge the gap so that disabled people are not denied access to mobile phones, digital radio or digital television simply because the equipment does not meet their needs.
	Electronic networks and services that cannot be accessed because the equipment at the user end fails to meet the user's needs is a bit like a train that, although fully accessible, cannot be boarded by disabled people unless steps are provided at the station. Deaf and deaf-blind people cannot gain access to emergency services if no usable text terminal is available, or if the equipment is available but prohibitively expensive. All of us who use mobile phones regularly should consider how difficult it would be for us to use them, or to use digital radios, if we could not read the visual display and there was no audio alternative. It is now possible for visual displays to be read out in audio form by computer software, but we have not been able to extend that to more portable IT products such as mobile phones.
	Amendment No. 209 is intended to give the Secretary of State power to consider terminal equipment for people with disabilities in determining the scope of universal service. It goes to the heart of the Bill. We have a universal service provision, and it is important for that to include such equipment. Ofcom would have a duty to promote inclusive design, and to take account of the small number of people who may not ever be reached by a completely liberalised telecommunications market because of their disabilities.
	This is not the first time that we have considered these matters. Until the 1990s, BT was obliged to ensure that its telephones met the needs of, for instance, people with hearing impairments with inductive coupling. I understand that in Denmark text phones are readily available to deaf, deaf-blind and speech-impaired people through Danish Telecom at subsidised prices. Last month the Government acknowledged the importance of that principle when they backed the establishment of an advisory committee on disability access by the European Commission's communications committee. It will consider the whole issue of terminal equipment, along with other aspects of access for disabled people.
	The new clause and the amendment tabled in my name are important, as are the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). I am sure that he will wish to speak to those amendments. It is important, even at this fag-end of our discussion of the Bill, that we take the opportunity once again to ensure that the needs of disabled people are debated on the Floor of the House of Commons and that we properly consider the matter. I hope that the Minister's response will be as positive as possible, so that we do not need to divide the House on this issue, and so that we will know that the Government have listened to the lobbying by people with disabilities of us, as Members of Parliament and, more importantly, of the Minister as the representative of the Government here tonight.

John Greenway: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of new clause 20. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) will recall that, as early as our third sitting in Committee, I was the first to raise the concerns of the disabled, the blind, the partially sighted and the hard of hearing. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that I was trying to make in Committee, which is that it is all very well for the Government to rely on clause 3(3)(i), which places a duty on Ofcom to have regard to the needs of disabled persons and those on low incomes, but many elderly people—let alone those who are partially sighted—find telecommunications equipment extremely difficult to use. We had an interesting discussion in Committee about how we could better encourage equipment manufacturers to have regard to the needs of the disabled—and, especially, of the elderly—when designing items such as the zappers that help us to get the maximum use from our television sets, videos and so on.
	The hon. Member for Ceredigion has hit on a good point in his amendment, in that it would require Ofcom merely
	"to encourage electronic communications network operators and terminal equipment manufacturers to co-operate".
	There would be no intense obligation. Having discussed this issue on a number of occasions in Committee, and notwithstanding the direct reference to the needs of the disabled, the elderly and those on low incomes in the Bill, there remains the overwhelming sense that a little more needs to be done. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will be able to say something in his reply to the hon. Gentleman that will encourage us to feel that Ministers might decide, if not here today but in the other place, to go a little further. The organisations that represent the people about whom we are concerned feel that more needs to be done, and their voice needs to be heard. I hope that the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman has suggested will commend itself to the Minister.

Nick Harvey: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 70 and 71. The future provision of audio-description, accessible teletext services and other services for disabled people will depend entirely on an adequate spectrum allocation. If that does not happen, any provisions that might be put into the Bill, now or subsequently, risk being made redundant simply by the lack of a joined-up spectrum policy. We are not talking about a vast amount of spectrum. Audio-description, for example, can be delivered very efficiently. It would not do to have the delivery of key services jeopardised by a lack of adequate foresight. The amendments would tackle this issue by ensuring that the Secretary of State and Ofcom had such issues at the forefront of their mind. Rejecting the amendments out of hand, however, would send the very negative signal to disabled people that their rights and needs were not being given adequate priority.

Michael Fabricant: I rise in broad support of all of the amendments, but I want briefly to raise one specific point. In the light of the comments of the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), the Minister will be aware that clear audio can and ought to be provided, as long as sufficient spectrum is made available. However, we in the United Kingdom have a specific problem with our type of television equipment, which can make reception of cable and digital terrestrial clear audio impossible, partly because of the way in which Nicam is transmitted. Again, Ofcom could be made to knock heads together on this issue, and I hope that the Minister will be fairly active in that regard.

Stephen Timms: I welcome the close interest that has been taken in this Bill by people with disabilities and their representatives—the Royal National Institute of the Blind has been particularly active—through the recent lobby and through letters and calls to Members of the House, who have passed on those concerns to us. We are committed to an inclusive society in which everybody can play a part, and we have honoured that commitment in the Bill and in the framework that we are setting for Ofcom.
	At the heart of everything that Ofcom will do are its general duties, which are set out in clause 3. Clause 3(3)(i) requires Ofcom to have regard to
	"the needs of persons with disabilities, of the elderly and of those on low incomes".
	That central duty places the needs of people with disabilities at the heart of the Bill, and of Ofcom's responsibilities.

Simon Thomas: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Timms: I will give way very briefly.

Simon Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister. He has just mentioned the current content of the Bill, but how will Government amendment No. 215—which we passed earlier, and which imposes on Ofcom a duty in terms of the community as a whole—impact on disabled people?

Stephen Timms: The real comfort for people with disabilities is the specific reference in clause 3(3)(i), rather than the changes that we discussed earlier.
	The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to make an order setting out the universal services to be provided throughout the UK. We have already launched a consultation on a draft order, which requires that all reasonable steps be taken to ensure that special measures are widely publicised, taking into consideration the needs of disabled users. We are extremely keen that people with sensory impairments be able to take advantage of all the benefits of digital television through improved access to services. The provision of subtitling, signing and audio description greatly enhances their opportunities, and allows them to benefit from the advances being made in television.
	Clause 295 requires Ofcom to draw up, publish and maintain a code that gives guidance on the extent to which television services should promote the understanding and enjoyment of programmes by people who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind or partially sighted. The clause establishes targets for at least 90 per cent. of Channel 3 and Channel 4 programmes to be subtitled, for 80 per cent. of programmes on other channels to be subtitled, for 10 per cent. of programmes to be audio-described, and for 5 per cent. to be translated into sign language. I heard what the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) said about clear audio, which is also an important point.
	On new clause 20, we have supported the work of the regulatory committee—set up under RATTE, the telecommunications terminal equipment directive—in investigating ways of improving access to equipment for the disabled, and we will continue to support that work. There could be further technical issues relating to network standards and specifications that would touch on Ofcom's responsibilities. Where such issues arise and, where Ofcom can play a useful role by encouraging such co-operation, I am confident that its existing duties will ensure that it does play such a role. I hope that hon. Members will gain some reassurance from that.
	Amendment No. 209 seeks to add to the matters that could be covered by the Secretary of State's order under clause 61 by including apparatus for users with disabilities. However, adding terminal equipment to that list would be outside the scope of the universal services mandated by the directives. The Secretary of State would have no power to require equipment to be provided as part of those services, so we cannot accept that amendment.
	Amendment No. 70 is not needed to achieve its desired effect. The mechanism to ensure that Ofcom will have regard to the needs of persons with disabilities—and in particular to the benefits that they will get from the provision of audio-description, signing, subtitling and text services—is already in place.
	I have drawn the widespread concern about these matters to the attention of the chairman of Ofcom, the noble Lord Currie. He has emphasised to me how seriously Ofcom will treat these concerns, and that it will organise in order to deliver effectively on its very important responsibilities to disabled people. That intention is ground for considerable encouragement among the many people who have raised concerns about this issue in recent weeks. 5.45 pm

Simon Thomas: I welcome the Minister's comments about the present chair of Ofcom and the way in which that body has been charged with a social responsibility towards people with disabilities. Provision of the equipment is useful not only for disabled people but for a wide range of people, including the elderly, as the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) suggested. It is important that we put pressure on manufacturers, as new clause 20 suggested, to encourage them to improve their practice.
	I am sure that the Minister will remember discussing similar amendments in Committee. We were told that a conference had been held, but nothing happened. Blame can be laid at all doors, but we must ensure that the matter does not stagnate for years simply because nothing has changed so far. The Minister has confirmed that Ofcom should continue to knock heads together to ensure that progress is made. The DTI and the DCMS do not always have their eye on the ball on this issue, but Ofcom can concentrate on it so that the needs of disabled people are considered at all times.
	In the light of what the Minister has said, and the fact that we need to progress to another set of important amendments that would affect people with disabilities, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 22
	 — 
	Limits on Ownership of National Daily and Sunday Newspapers

'.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Office of Fair Trading to exercise their powers under this section to secure that, within a period of one year after the coming into force of this section, no person runs more than one national daily newspaper and no person runs more than one national Sunday newspaper.
	(2) In pursuance of the duty specified in subsection (1) the Office of Fair Trading may issue an enforcement order which may provide for—
	(a) the division of any business (whether by the sale of any part of the undertaking or assets or otherwise);
	(b) the division of any group of interconnected bodies corporate;
	(3) The provisions of Part 3 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40) shall apply to an enforcement order under subsection (2) as if that order were an order under section 86 of that Act.
	(4) In this section the expression "runs a newspaper" shall be construed in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 2 to this Act.'.—[Mr. Mullin.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Chris Mullin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 26—Reviews and report by OFCOM on compliance with Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice in context of newspaper mergers—
	'After section 44A of the Enterprise Act 2002 (c. 40) (additional investigation and report by OFCOM: newspaper mergers) there shall be inserted—
	"44B Further investigation and report by OFCOM on compliance with Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice
	(1) This section applies where—
	(a) the Secretary of State has given an intervention notice in relation to a relevant merger situation; and
	(b) the intervention notice mentions any newspaper public interest consideration.
	(2) OFCOM may, within the period required by the Secretary for a report under section 44A, give a report to the Secretary of State on the compliance of newspapers affected by the relevant merger situation with the Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice.
	(3) Any report given under subsection (2) shall contain OFCOM's advice on the relevance of any information about the compliance of newspapers affected by the relevant merger situation with the Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice to any newspaper public interest consideration mentioned in the intervention notice concerned and which is or may be relevant to the Secretary of State's decision as to whether to make a reference under section 45.
	(4) For the purposes of carrying out their functions under subsections (2) and (3), OFCOM shall, from time to time, review the operation of the Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice.
	(5) In this section—
	"the Press Complaints Commission" means the body first established in 1991, and
	"the Code of Practice" means the Code of Practice issued by the Press Complaints Commission in December 1999 and any subsequent revision of that Code (including any such revision of the Code after the coming into force of this section).".'.
	Amendment No. 163, in page 319, line 33, leave out Clause 365.
	Amendment No. 73, in page 320, line 6, at end insert—
	'(2C) The need for transparency in the capital and control structures of businesses that run a local or national newspaper is specified in this section.".'.
	Amendment No. 164, in page 320, line 7, leave out Clause 366.
	Amendment No. 74, in page 320, line 23, leave out 'or (2B)' and insert ', (2B) or (2C)'.
	Amendment No. 165, in page 320, line 30, leave out Clause 367.
	Amendment No. 166, in page 321, line 11, leave out Clause 368.
	Government amendments Nos. 279 to 289.
	Amendment No. 167, in page 322, line 40, leave out Clause 369.
	Amendment No. 75, in page 322, line 46, leave out 'or (2B))' and insert ', (2B) or (2C))'.
	Amendment No. 76, in page 323, line 8, leave out 'or (2B)' and insert ', (2B) or (2C)'.
	Amendment No. 168, in page 323, line 11, leave out Clause 370.
	Amendment No. 77, in page 323, line 21, leave out 'or (2B)' and insert ', (2B) or (2C)'.
	Amendment No. 78, in page 323, line 29, leave out 'or (2B)' and insert ', (2B) or (2C)'.
	Amendment No. 169, in page 323, line 38, leave out Clause 371.
	Amendment No. 79, in page 324, line 7, leave out 'or (2B)' and insert ', (2B) or (2C)'.
	Amendment No. 170, in page 324, line 17, leave out Clause 372.
	Amendment No. 171, in page 325, line 30, leave out Clause 373.
	Amendment No. 80, in page 325, line 34, leave out 'and (2B)' and insert 'to 2(C)'.
	Amendment No. 81, in page 325, line 40, leave out 'and (2B)' and insert 'to 2(C)'.
	Amendment No. 172, in page 326, line 7, leave out Clause 374.
	Amendment No. 173, in page 326, line 25, leave out Clause 375.
	Amendment No. 174, in page 327, line 1, leave out Clause 376.
	Amendment No. 82, in page 327, line 7, leave out 'or (2B)' and insert ', (2B) or 2(C)'.
	Amendment No. 175, in page 327, line 16, leave out Clause 377.
	Amendment No. 83, in page 327, line 25, leave out 'or (2B)' and insert ', (2B) or 2(C)'.
	Amendment No. 176, in page 328, line 3, leave out Clause 378.
	Amendment No. 177, in page 328, line 12, leave out Clause 379.
	Amendment No. 178, in page 473, line 1, leave out Schedule 16.
	Government amendment No. 290.

Chris Mullin: New clause 22 is a simple clause that invites the Office of Fair Trading to specify, within a year, that a national newspaper corporation or individual proprietor shall be permitted to own only one daily and one Sunday newspaper, and should put all other newspapers on the market. It should appeal to anyone who agrees with me that the free flow of information is the lifeblood of democracy.
	Both the main political parties, when in government, have—I was going to say paid lip service to—expressed their support for the principle of pluralism and democracy. The Labour Government's consultation on media ownership stated in 2001:
	"We want a plurality of voices giving the citizen access to a variety of views."
	It ruled out a dependence on the marketplace or competition to deliver that principle, continuing:
	Competition law is not designed to deliver diversity and plurality in the media."
	Amen to that. The Conservative Government, in their consultation on media ownership in 1995, stated:
	"A free and diverse media are an indispensable part of the democratic process. Special media ownership rules are needed therefore to provide safeguards necessary to maintain diversity and plurality."
	By some inexplicable oversight, the Bill contains nothing that gives expression to those lofty principles, at least as far as newspapers are concerned. The purpose of the new clause is to make good that omission. The proprietor most affected—although not the only one—would be Mr. Murdoch, who owns about a third of our national newspapers, as well as a satellite television company. He would be required, under new clause 22, to choose between The Times and The Sun, and between The Sunday Times and the News of the World. Everything else would have to go on the market.
	I do not want to exaggerate: the new clause would result in only a modest gain, given the long queue of unsavoury characters that forms whenever a national newspaper comes on the market, but it is right in principle. If we wanted to go further, we could lay down a few ground rules that applicants for the ownership of a national newspaper might have to live up to. The new clause is just a way to start the ball rolling. It has the merit of simplicity, and I commend it to the House.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) will get a chance to say a few words about new clause 26, which I strongly support. It would require Ofcom to report on whether newspapers involved in mergers have complied with the Press Complaints Commission's code of conduct. Like my new clause, it is very modest. I know—because he tabled amendments to that effect that were not selected for debate—that my hon. Friend wanted to go a wee bit further, and require Ofcom to report from time to time on the newspaper industry's compliance with its own code of practice.
	The House should be aware that the code of practice is the industry's own; it was not laid down by the House or someone else. That shows how very modest new clause 26 is. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House went a bit further the other day when he suggested that the industry's code of practice should be entrenched in law, with penalties for breach. I thought that that was very interesting. Given that it comes from such a senior member of the Government, I have no doubt that it will be taken very seriously.
	However, all that is beyond the modest scope of new clause 26, which is in keeping with the modest ambitions possible in the short time available. I have no doubt that, if it ever came to pass, it would trigger all the usual hypocrisy about the threat to freedom of the press. As we all know, however, we do not have a free press in this country; it is owned by a handful of corporations and rich men. On the whole, they are shameless in their abuse of the power that they have.
	I shall end what I have to say in respect of new clause 26 with something that I hope will help my hon. Friend the Minister. I have dug out of the excellent account by Mr. Max Hastings of his life and times at The Daily Telegraph a passage relating to the PCC. I know that the Minister will find it of interest. Mr. Hastings wrote that some British newspapers flourish on habitual indifference as to whether what they print might be true or not. He went on to name the editor of the People as one of the editors of the titles to which he was referring, I think because the latter was an adjudicator on the PCC. Mr. Hastings said that those editors were invited to take their turns as members of the PCC, but that the commission was diminished by the participation of journalists, who should be perceived as being beyond the pale. Perhaps he had in mind Mr. Paul Dacre, who plays a major part in the Harmsworth lie machine and who also sits on the PCC, impartially arbitrating on complaints.

Brian White: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Chris Mullin: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I want to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush time to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye.
	Mr. Hastings goes on to say that the PCC will never deserve much regard from the public as long as it appears willing to justify obvious excesses by some of the newspapers which pay its bills. There we are. All that is grist to the mill of new clause 26. I support new clause 26, and I invite the House to support new clause 22 as well.

John Whittingdale: In respect of new clause 22, I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that we need plurality and diversity, but our newspaper industry already has those qualities. We certainly have diversity and plurality of voices: almost every conceivable opinion is represented somewhere in the British press.
	The hon. Gentleman singled out Rupert Murdoch and News International. He is right: the new clause would require News International to divest itself of either The Times or The Sun and of either The Sunday Times or the News of the World. However, the effects would not be restricted to that. The proprietors of the Daily Express would have to choose between the Daily Express or the Daily Star and between the Sunday Express or the Daily Star Sunday. The proprietors of the Daily Mirror would have to divest themselves of either the Sunday Mirror or the Sunday People; and if the Daily Record is, as it believes, a daily newspaper, they would have to choose between the Daily Mirror and the Daily Record. It is arguable that the Evening Standard is a national newspaper, so the proprietors of the Daily Mail would have to divest themselves of one or the other.
	That may all come as welcome news to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, but I suspect that there would not be a vast queue of people who wanted to acquire newspapers and that his proposals would be likely to lead to fewer newspapers and thus less diversity and plurality—the very objectives that he wants to promote. If every proprietor were allowed to own only one paper, the result could be that they would all move roughly towards the sector where they would attract most readers and the hon. Gentleman might end up with a dozen or so versions of the Daily Mail. I cannot believe that he wants that.
	The new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) is clearly intended to bring the Press Complaints Commission under some form of statutory control. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the desirability of that in the past. The new clause is clearly a backdoor method for giving Ofcom, which is a Government regulator, a say over the regulation of the press.
	I do not defend the PCC in every instance. It has made mistakes, but I have always believed that self-regulation of the press is infinitely more desirable than Government intervention or control. The new clause would be a slippery slope; it would be a move towards Government intervention and statutory interference in the freedom of the press. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is now present because she made it clear in the newspapers this morning that she was opposed to statutory press regulation. She will thus be opposed to the proposals made by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush.
	We remain concerned about provisions that give Ofcom some say over newspaper mergers. Our amendments would remove from Ofcom any advisory role to the Secretary of State over newspaper mergers. The Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission have had a long-standing role in advising the Secretary of State on whether mergers are likely to lead to a substantial lessening of competition. Their considerations cover, in large part, a number of the matters on which it is proposed that Ofcom would advise the Secretary of State. Involving Ofcom in that process is thus unnecessary. In fact, it is more than unnecessary; it is dangerous. Ofcom would be given the role of advising the Secretary of State on the accuracy of news presentation and freedom of expression. For the first time, a Government body would have a role in examining the content of newspapers.
	I accept the fact that the Government have assured us that the provisions do not represent a first step towards Government intervention in the content of the press, but that is not how the industry views them. The issue has brought together interests right across the spectrum. Last week, Mr. Andrew Neil wrote:
	"Give Ofcom this power and it will be the end of British press freedom as we know it."
	Although I do not always share Mr. Neil's rather colourful descriptions, and that statement goes a little further than I might want, he raises genuine concern that the measure would allow a Government body to begin to adjudicate on questions of newspaper content and editorial freedom of expression. That is a dangerous step, so we believe that it would be far better if the clauses on newspaper mergers were removed from the Bill. Ofcom is a body established to regulate the electronic communications industries—
	It being Six o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to order [10 February], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	Question accordingly negatived.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	Amendment proposed: No. 163, in page 319, line 33, leave out Clause 365.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 335.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
	Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

Simon Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is written on the Order Paper, and you have just said, that the Queen's and the Prince of Wales's consent is to be signified on Third Reading. I am still finding my way round this place; I know that the Queen's consent is needed for primary legislation, but I did not know that the Prince of Wales's consent was needed, too. I would appreciate an explanation of why that is needed on Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Public Bill Office will be able to give the hon. Gentleman a definitive answer. I believe that it pertains to the Duchy of Cornwall.

Patricia Hewitt: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third Time.
	All of us in the House care passionately about the health of our country's communications and media. The media industry is unique. Its products, if we can call them that, tell the world who we are. Its outputs help to shape our culture, our identity and our values. It is vital to our democracy and the preservation of a free society.
	However, the communications and media sector is also changing extraordinarily fast. It took 38 years for radio to reach just 50 million people; it took 13 years for television to reach the same number; it took just five years for the internet to get to that stage. No doubt, it will be even less for the next development. As technology advances, we are all bombarded with smarter, faster ways of keeping in touch and accessing services and content. The combination of creativity, innovation, technology and entrepreneurial flair is a driving force in our economy. The creative economy and the creative industries are sectors in which the United Kingdom is in the lead. We are determined to keep it that way.
	This is a strong Bill. It has undergone extensive consultation and scrutiny and I have been greatly encouraged by the consensus that exists on so much of what it proposes. The Joint Committee chaired by Lord Puttnam, which reported last summer, made an excellent contribution to our work. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I said when the report was published, the Committee took a good Bill and made it better. The scrutiny and debate that we have had in the House have made it better still.

Chris Mullin: With all due respect to my right hon. Friend, does she not think that it is a rather large omission that at no stage in Committee or on Report has there been any discussion of the ownership changes that the Bill will make to ITV? Furthermore, there has been only the barest minimum of discussion on the changes to Channel Five. Are they not major omissions?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. That very issue was set to be debated in Committee, but I regret to say that Liberal Democrat Members did not get up in time. They were not there in Committee first thing in the morning to move their amendments. Last week, we had more than five hours for the first day of Report, but the amendments on that subject were not reached, simply because other Opposition Members chose—as was their prerogative—to use the time to debate the BBC.
	As my hon. Friend is aware, there have also been extensive opportunities outside the House—in numerous conferences in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I have taken part—for all the issues to be aired. It is a pity that they were not dealt with in Committee or on Report, but that was not my choice.

David Winnick: Although I recognise all the reasons that my right hon. Friend has outlined, will she accept, as I have said on a previous occasion, that there is anxiety among Labour Members—I do not know how many—about the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)? That anxiety will not go away. Although there may have been plenty of debate and discussion outside, it does not alter the fact that it should have taken place here in the Chamber of the House of Commons.

Patricia Hewitt: As I have said, Opposition Members were between them responsible for the fact that the issue was not debated in the Chamber. I have no doubt at all that it will be debated extensively in another place. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I have said on numerous occasions, I also have no doubt that it will be debated inside and outside the House. By opening our media sector further to foreign investment, we will strengthen it. I am very much bearing in mind the fact that, among other things, we would not have Classic FM in this country were it not for the foreign investment that was made available when the City of London and other investors would not provide it.
	I am grateful for the constructive approach that Opposition Members have generally taken. I hope that for the most part they feel in their turn that the Government have listened to their views and have taken action on many of the issues that they raised.
	The Bill is founded on solid principles. It is about ensuring quality in broadcasting and safeguarding the wider interests of the whole community at a time when new technology is changing very fast. It is about delivering real benefits to consumers through competition and safeguarding their interests through an independent panel to advise Ofcom. And, of course, it is about developing a dynamic, competitive communications sector in which our businesses flourish.
	The Bill contains provisions over which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) reminded us, there has been disagreement and about which there will be further debate. We shall continue to listen to that debate and to welcome improvements.

Chris Mullin: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a paper by Professor Michael Tracey that was prepared for the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust? Michael Tracey is an American professor at the University of Colorado who, having studied what has happened to American television since the market was allowed to let rip under Ronald Reagan, describes what we are proposing as
	"as wrong-headed as it's possible to be without being totally insane".

Patricia Hewitt: I have not had the pleasure of reading that paper; I look forward to receiving it from my hon. Friend. What we are doing is opening our market to greater investment, but at the same time, and based on the review of content that we commissioned, strengthening content regulation. I believe that we will have the best of both worlds, with both programme quality and investment increasing.
	Let me mention some of the improvements that we have made to the Bill during its passage through this House. Ofcom's general duties are crucial in determining how it will operate, so they need to be right. I am pleased that we have tabled and agreed amendments that give greater certainty and clarity to Ofcom and its stakeholders and make it clear that Ofcom has a duty to further the interests of the wider community, as well as those of consumers. In response to the Independent Television Commission's review of the programme supply market, we have toughened up the powers that we had already proposed for Ofcom on content regulation, and we have put in place production quotas to ensure that we keep the vitality of our independent and our regional production industry.
	We have tightened the definition of television licensable content so that it only covers, and can only cover, services that consist of radio and television programmes that are available for reception by the general public—in other words, so-called push technology. In that way, we exclude the internet—a point about which several hon. Members were particularly concerned, because it is pull, rather than push, technology. We also exclude the press, because obviously newspapers are not television or radio.
	We are keen to go on listening and to continue to improve the Bill in line with the core principles that my right hon. Friend and I have set out, but there are some areas where we believe that the Bill is already right.

Andrew Robathan: Perfect?

Patricia Hewitt: Perfectly formed, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Andrew Robathan: The Secretary of State may recall—I am not sure whether she was here at the time—that on Second Reading, when we were told that the Bill was already perfect, I offered hon. Members a wager that at least 100 amendments would be tabled. [Interruption.] I am told that there have been more than 200. Indeed, I was poised to speak on 81 before the guillotine came down—those are 81 Government amendments that have not even been discussed. [Interruption.]

Patricia Hewitt: I am being reminded that the hon. Gentleman is not a licensed bookie, so he is treading in dangerous waters. I am sure that he would not want to criticise us for taking serious account of comments that have been made by Conservative Members and by the Joint Committee. We have been happy to table amendments to ensure that improvements are made, but it is clearly impossible to propose changes to the merger regime as it affects newspapers without attracting not only criticism, but extraordinary accusations of censorship and control freakery. We have had overblown remarks from some commentators and suggestions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I are divided—a bad cop, good cop act. That is rubbish. My right hon. Friend and I, and our ministerial and official colleagues, have been at one throughout our deliberations on the Bill. Indeed, it is the product of a unique piece of team work between two Departments. I welcome that and we are both proud of it. Unfortunately, accusations of censorship and control freakery will always gain column space. So let me set the record straight.
	My right hon. Friend and I have taken every opportunity, publicly and privately, to give assurances that nothing in the Bill is designed to allow censorship of the press or could allow censorship of the press by the front or back door. Nothing in the Bill would extend content regulation to newspapers. On the contrary, and in distinction to some of my hon. Friends, we are committed to the self-regulation of the press by the Press Complaints Commission.

Clive Soley: I urge my right hon. Friend not to spend too long on that subject because she has no one to argue against. The vast majority of people accept that no one is attempting to suppress the press. The only exception to that is the press themselves. Let us not spend too much time on that, because we might give credence to their argument.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but given the misinformation that has been circulating in authoritative sections of the press, it is worth spelling out our case again.
	The clauses on newspaper mergers will protect the public interest when newspaper titles change hands. There is nothing new in that. Ministers have been taking decisions on newspaper mergers for more than 30 years. The only role for Ofcom will be to give open and honest advice to help Ministers make those decisions. Ofcom itself will not make any of the decisions. Similarly, there has been considerable debate in the House, most notably last week, on the BBC. Again, our position on the BBC within Ofcom is equally clear. The BBC is a charter body. It has a special relationship with Parliament because of the licence fee. Our policy in the Bill is properly balanced. It ensures that the BBC maintains its independence and unique relationship with Parliament while bringing it within the overall regulatory structure and ensuring that it fulfils its responsibilities as the major public service broadcaster in our country.
	For many hon. Members, the Bill is like an old friend, but we should not allow our familiarity with it to detract from the impact that it will have on the sector and, for reasons that we all understand, our public and democratic life. In Ofcom we have created a new organisation with a new vision and remit that will ensure that the digital future in the extraordinarily fast-changing world of communications and media brings benefits to us all as citizens, consumers and members of the business community. The Bill is in excellent shape and I commend it to the House.

Tim Yeo: May I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State to the Chamber? I think that it is the first time that we have enticed her to the House during the lengthy proceedings on the Bill and, indeed, the preceding paving Bill. I am not sure of the reason for her coyness, unless there was a wafer-thin difference between her and her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which she is now eager to deny. I had hoped for an earlier opportunity to have a debate with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and I regret that, even at this late stage, she could not fill many of the gaps that arose in our proceedings.
	I shall reiterate our procedural concerns. The Bill is wide-ranging and comprehensive, and contains about 400 clauses. [Hon. Members: "More now."] That is true—the Bill has considerably more clauses now than it did before Second Reading. The Secretary of State said that scrutiny has made a strong Bill better—a sentiment that would make a strong man weep. The Government have prevented much scrutiny from taking place, as the timetable for consideration of the Bill was grossly inadequate. More than a quarter of the clauses were not debated at all in Committee. At a time when the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny is frequently criticised for its inadequacy, it is extremely unsatisfactory that much of the Bill has not been properly examined in the House. I hope that the business managers will take note when timetables for future Bills are considered.

Chris Mullin: We could have got on better if the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had not frittered away several hours the other day talking about the BBC and matters that the Bill does not touch on.

Tim Yeo: That intervention ill behoves the hon. Gentleman, who voted for the programme motion in the House.

Chris Mullin: But we could have made better use of the time.

Tim Yeo: On the contrary. I shall come to the BBC in a moment, but there can be few more important issues to debate in relation to the Bill than one to which the Opposition responsibly devoted a significant amount of time.
	I hope that there will be an opportunity in another place to examine some of the 100 or so clauses that were untouched in the Commons, including clauses on nominated news providers and the content of licensed providers. Regrettably, the issue of foreign ownership was not considered in Committee, but we broadly support the Government's position, which is why we did not consider it a priority to initiate such a debate. However, the Secretary of State rightly pointed out that the inattention of Liberal Democrat Members prevented those provisions from being scrutinised, and I am sure that that will be noted in constituencies that the Liberal Democrats will be struggling in two years' time to defend. This is an issue that attracts much attention outside the House, and it would have been interesting to hear the debate had it occurred. The extent to which the Bill as originally presented needed improvement is reflected in the colossal number of amendments tabled by the Government. I dare say that that saga has not ended, and that more amendments will be tabled in another place.
	Turning to the substance of the Bill, we have supported its provisions throughout. We believe that it is right to establish a new regulator, Ofcom, and support the general liberalisation of the communications and media industries. We certainly do not underestimate the scale of the challenge facing Ofcom. It must maintain a light touch; it must be accountable and transparent; it needs to be flexible in responding to a rapidly changing market, as the Secretary of State said; and it must not act as a gold-plater of European Union directives. The media and communications industries represent two of the greatest businesses of the 21st century, and are businesses in which Britain has many natural advantages, including a good record of innovation; a large pool of entrepreneurial and creative talent; the English language; a country in which people like to live and work—

Chris Bryant: The BBC.

Tim Yeo: The hon. Gentleman is a former BBC employee, so it is not surprising that he is pushing its interests. He does so on many occasions in the House.

Andrew Robathan: Pension?

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend has raised the issue of the BBC pension fund, and I hope that if he contributes to the debate later he will go into more detail, as he is clearly an authority on the subject. I have not heard that the BBC pension fund has closed to new entrants, or attempted to revise benefits for existing members, but I may have missed that in the papers.
	In this country, we could and should excel in the media and communications industries, but if we are to do so, Ofcom must not over-regulate. There remain a couple of issues of concern. We support the moves that the Government have made to relax media ownership rules, though we believe that Ministers should be bolder and sweep away all the remaining vestiges of the special restrictive regime that has hitherto applied to the industry. The existing competition laws are sufficient to address any concerns that may arise and to protect any interests that need to be looked after. I remind the House that when the Broadcasting Act 1996 was debated, Labour Members on the then Opposition Benches supported my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) in his efforts to remove unnecessary restrictions on cross-media ownership. What a pity that, so far from seeing the light in the intervening six years, the blinkers are on and hon. Members are reverting to a more traditional Labour position.
	The relaxation of the ownership rules should extend to ITN, so that ITV could if it wished own its own news provider, just as the BBC and Sky do. I favour a situation where there are three competing news providers in the market. I recognise that ITN has regional strengths to which Sky does not aspire, and I hope all three organisations will flourish, but I do not believe that special controls will help that. Indeed, special ownership controls could jeopardise that desirable objective.
	I turn briefly to the issue of newspapers, which was covered so eloquently and forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford in the previous debate. I reiterate that we do not believe there is a role for Ofcom in relation to newspaper mergers. We share many of the concerns expressed by the newspaper industry and we hope that those will be considered carefully in another place.
	Another substantial flaw in the Bill is that, despite extensive argument, the Government remain obdurate in their attitude as regards the BBC. There is no justification for separating the BBC from the rest of the industry, as the Bill continues to do. To say that is not to criticise the BBC governors, who performed a unique and valuable role in the past. It is a recognition of the change in the industry. The BBC governors should still have a role in the future, but it is a new and different one, analogous in some respects to the role—

Chris Bryant: If the hon. Gentleman consulted some of his colleagues, he might find that those who have worked for the BBC in the past did not necessarily always argue the BBC's cause in Committee. Does he accept that the governors have a considerable way to go to prove their independence, but that the best way of conducting that debate is through the process of charter renewal, not in the context of the Bill?

Tim Yeo: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not impugn the independence of everyone who previously worked for the BBC—only a proportion of them. On the charter, it would be wrong to wait until charter renewal and the debate that is just starting up to decide the matter—wrong because we are unlikely to have the chance of primary legislation on this scale in the House within that period. I understand why people may think that the concern overlaps with the debate about charter renewal, the way to deal with it is to introduce provisions into the Bill that come into force at the time of the new BBC charter. That would be a simple solution that would command widespread support.
	The crucial need is to bring the BBC into line with other broadcasting organisations with effect from the earliest possible date and certainly not later than the date of the new charter. That would leave the BBC governors with an important role, in some respects analogous to that performed by non-executive directors at Channel 4.
	The success of Ofcom and the effectiveness of the Bill will be judged by whether the Government's claim to favour a light regulatory touch is borne out in practice. Competition between providers supplying well-informed consumers with goods and services in a liberalised market is the best form of regulation. I hope that in 10 years' time, Ofcom will be a smaller body than it will be when the Bill becomes law. In this context, the example of another super-regulator, the Financial Services Authority, is not entirely encouraging.
	New technology, if applied properly, can empower consumers. It can promote markets where none have previously existed. Digital switchover makes it possible for television to be priced differently in the 21st century than hitherto. In charting a course for the future of the industry, bearing in mind that Parliament is unlikely to have the chance to legislate again on this scale in the near future, we must not be prisoners of the past. Almost two decades have passed since the Peacock report held out the eventual prospect of progress towards a full broadcasting market. I hope that nothing that Ofcom does will impede the progress that could now be made.
	Another criterion for assessing the success of the new regulator will be whether the way in which consumers access television 10 years from now is more like what occurs in the marketplace that exists for books or magazines—a marketplace in which viewers pay for what they watch when they want to watch it and not for much else. I hope that Ofcom will facilitate a move away from a present position, in which all television viewers pay a highly regressive tax to a single and very privileged broadcaster, regardless of whether they consume any of that broadcaster's output.
	In conclusion, the Opposition still have significant reservations about aspects of the Bill. We hope that further improvements will be made in another place. In particular, I look forward to the Government accepting proposals to allow the National Audit Office immediate opportunities to scrutinise the BBC. I hope that that will not be long delayed. However, we have no substantial quarrel with the main principles of the Bill and will continue to support it on Third Reading, as we did on Second Reading.

Nick Harvey: The Government are right to say that the Bill has improved during its long gestation in terms of public consultation and the scrutiny that it received in the House both last summer through the Joint Committee and in the Standing Committee proceedings that we have just completed. Nevertheless, nobody should take the view that the Bill is perfect. Parliament should be realistic about how near to perfection we can make a Bill that deals with a sector like this.
	The genesis of the Bill was the speed with which technologies in the various markets that the new regime will cover were converging. Of course, since that time, there has been a significant change in market conditions and some of the progress towards technological advances that was occurring has slowed considerably. The climate now is very different from the climate a relatively small number of years ago. However, we do not know at what speed things will change, including in other markets elsewhere in the world, which will also impact on developments here in the UK.
	When we started out on the paving Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) asked on Second Reading what such regulation of the sector was for and why Ofcom would carry out its role. The amendment to which the Government agreed today that put into Ofcom's remit consideration of the wider public interest rather than the more narrow focus on consumer interest provided through competition changes significantly the answer to the question that he asked on that occasion. I believe that Ofcom will be significantly better equipped to set about defending the interests of the public as a whole as a result of that amendment.
	It will not be Ofcom that determines the speed with which broadband rolls out—and neither will it be the Government or the House. It will largely be the market that will deliver on the aspirations, which I think are probably shared across the House, for broadband technologies to spread as quickly as possible. Certainly, hon. Members in all parts of the House have spoken up on behalf of rural areas and other areas that are not enticing economic prospects for those who are rolling out the technology. It is to be hoped that, during the passage of the Bill, we have given that development the best chance and the fairest wind that we can. How Ofcom now takes on its role will determine how successful that is.
	Ofcom will have a very demanding task—of that there is no doubt. The initial task of bringing together the five regulators will be a challenging one, but the real work will begin once that initial process of absorption has taken place. A great deal is expected of Ofcom and it will be doing its work with relatively new legislation. That is why it may be premature for the Government to have organised or facilitated at the same time a revolution in the ownership regulations that would more naturally have followed on the occasion of the first three-year review. Nevertheless, it seems that the Government are determined to head down that path.
	There are still particular aspects that I hope will be examined in another place, because although we have made significant progress in improving the Bill, I firmly believe that we could make further improvements. I especially hope that the ITN question, which the Conservative spokesman has just touched on, will be addressed. ITN is hampered by the regime in which it operates, and it needs to be set free as a matter of certainty from the shackles that prevent it from operating as effectively as it could if we are to safeguard the existence of three competitive news networks.
	I hope that we have the rules for the future of commercial radio about right, although I am not entirely confident of that. A lot of ground has been given to the commercial radio lobby, which protested too much when seeking more ground than it has been given. I also hope that the safeguards that have been built into the legislation prove adequate to prevent local radio from being sacrificed so that it becomes proxy national radio, as we have seen in other countries.
	We must hope that Ofcom uses the considerable powers that we are putting at its disposal and that it shows more relish for picking them up and applying them than did some of its predecessor bodies. Expecting the legislation to be perfect it is not a reasonable aspirational benchmark to set ourselves, but its slow evolution means that it is as good as we are likely to get. I hope that the House of Lords goes over those crucial issues and puts right a few anomalies that remain. That having been said, the Bill is necessary and worthwhile, so we shall support it on Third Reading.

Chris Mole: I am pleased to participate in the debate, even though perhaps I come late to it, although not at the fag end, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said. I declare my interest: before entering Parliament, I worked for BT for 17 years and I am a member of Connect, the union for professionals in communications. I add my voice to those who have been struggling to make it clear that the Bill is about more than just broadcast and print media issues. Indeed, over time, those issues will become less important.
	Although the Bill talks a good talk about convergence of different strands of electronic communication, it addresses the broadcast and telecommunications streams separately. It is, of course, welcome that the Bill enacts the operation of Ofcom—a regulator that will span the whole sector—as that will allow markets to be regulated with a common approach as technologies continue to converge. An example might be appropriate.
	For many years, I have enjoyed the occasional bit of jazz. Jazz FM is an excellent easy-listening jazz station that operates in the London area. However, I can now receive it at home not just through conventional FM radio broadcasts, but on the Freeview digital television platform and by webcast over a broadband ADSL telecommunications network. Better than that, I can access 91 different jazz radio stations via the internet. Indeed, via that route I can access 2,000 radio stations across all genres. The critical issue here is that different elements of the regulation regimes, and none, will apply to all three delivery routes.
	Therein lies the dilemma for the Government. As the technology increasingly shifts from push to pull—I welcome the Secretary of State's comments, although I struggle entirely to understand how some of those separations can be maintained into the future—individual consumer choice grows and content regulation becomes less appropriate. Why should programming be regulated across the watershed if it is available by video on demand or, indeed, at the video rental shop, 24 hours a day? As the Government seek to negotiate with the industry on self-regulation of video on demand, I just observe that the comparative economic model for video on demand is not broadcast TV, but Blockbuster or similar video retailers.
	Let us suppose that I am watching interactive television involving two media. Some content may be received via broadcast digital television, and some via a telecommunications network. Which regulation will apply? The dividing lines become increasingly blurred. What can be guaranteed is that many of the problems that must be addressed by the Bill, and indeed by Ofcom, have not yet been thought of. It would therefore be entirely inappropriate for the Bill to be too prescriptive.
	The examples I have given tell us something about the pace of change in these markets, and should also tell us something about the framework that the Bill seeks to operate. If our economy is to benefit from the potential that technological development can offer, regulation must be as light as possible. I should like to know whether the Government have accepted the Joint Committee's view that a "light touch" approach should not be commended to Ofcom. I am a natural sceptic when it comes to the effectiveness and accountability of regulators, and the history of Oftel's operation features, in many instances, an attempt to micro-manage individual businesses rather than providing a comprehensive framework offering a level playing field to all operators.
	In the past I have been concerned about the regulator's intervention in telephone apparatus supply, and I fear that the new framework may feature the same style. Given that such apparatus has been available in every high-street store for many years, and given that safety and connection standards issues are covered by statutory instruments, what interest should the regulator take? That looks like the heavy hand rather than the light touch. If the light touch is not possible, however, proportional intervention should be the order of the day.
	I welcome the Government's wish to see the open and transparent operation of Ofcom, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), I welcomed David Currie's appearance at the meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on telecommunications the week before last. I hope that the Government will listen to those who suggest that the "significant market provider" approach could be further enhanced. Given the speed at which products and services are developing, Ofcom should be required to review that approach at least once every two years. There should be standards of promptness, requiring the regulator to ensure that reviews and investigations do not unnecessarily delay the introduction of new services.
	The regulator must also be robust in dealing with spurious allegations from competing service suppliers. All too frequently, Oftel allowed itself to become embroiled in litigious warfare between operators. That did nothing more than delay the conferring of benefits to consumers in the form of innovations and new service developments.
	This is a difficult area in which to regulate—and, because of its global nature, the internet will remain impossible to regulate. The Government have done well to consult widely and to tackle the issues realistically, and, despite my fear that the pace of change may return us to them sooner rather than later, I commend the Bill.

Michael Fabricant: They say that familiarity breeds contempt, but I cannot say that I have contempt for this Bill, although we all served three months in Committee, some of us served about a month on the Committee dealing with the paving Bill, and still others served on the Committee dealing with the scrutiny Bill—although I do not have that claim to fame. It cannot be said that the Bill has not received a huge amount of consideration.
	Along with my Front-Bench colleagues, I support a Bill that was driven strongly by changes in technology. Digital developments have brought about the convergence of technologies, and it is right for the various institutions that currently govern broadcasting and other bodies to converge into one overriding body, the Office of Communications.
	Nevertheless, I have a few caveats. Members will know, because I have reminded them on several occasions, that I used to work in broadcasting, mostly radio, before I came here. When I first applied for a licence—in Brighton, back in the 1980s—it became apparent—[Interruption.] Some Members heard this during the Committee stage, but it is worth repeating. [Interruption.] I do not want to delay matters because other hon. Members want to speak. It is worth repeating that radio took a minor role in the old Independent Broadcasting Authority, and it is extremely important that—as when the IBA was broken up and become the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority—radio does not now become a small part of the Office of Communications. It is important that radio should be allowed to thrive.
	My second point, which has been discussed at great length and is very important, relates to the BBC. The Government like to claim that they are at the heart of Europe and that the European Union always listens to Governments, yet, time and again, Chirac and Schröder seem to be putting up two metaphorical fingers to the Prime Minister. A similar degree of negotiating skill seems to be apparent when it comes to the Government negotiating with the BBC because, once again, the BBC has got its way. It will not fall under the auspices of the Office of Communications, and I think that that is wrong. Even though the BBC often makes the right judgment when people complain about it, it is right and proper that it should not be seen as its own judge and jury. As I said in Committee—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that such remarks were probably better made in Committee. The new clauses concerning the BBC have not been added to the Bill, and this is a Third Reading debate in which we should concentrate on what is in the Bill.

Michael Fabricant: The Office of Communications will have responsibility for the BBC under tiers 1 and 2. In that respect, the BBC will have protection but, oh dear, what a shame that it will not have protection under tier 3!
	The Secretary of State spoke about the encouragement of the independent broadcast sector, and she was absolutely right to do so because there is still a quota in BBC television for independent production. Sadly, however, BBC radio will not be controlled by such a quota. That is an anomaly, and I hope that it will be addressed when the Bill goes to another place.
	The issue of disabilities has been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Secretary of State herself said that she wished to see people with disabilities involved in the broadcast media, both as broadcasters and—if they can be—as listeners and viewers of radio and television stations. The Secretary of State was right to point that out, but there is more to be done in that area. I would like to commend the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who has consistently pressed this point, both on the Office of Communications Bill and the paving Bill. The Government should take on board more of those arguments and include them when the Bill goes to another place.

John Robertson: Just to help the hon. Gentleman get to the end of his speech, would he agree that one thing that is missing from the Bill is music? I have spoken about this on many occasions, and I know that the matter will be dear to his heart. Does he agree that it should be considered in another place and that we should get the word "music" into the Bill?

Michael Fabricant: I would like to agree with the hon. Gentleman but I would be ruled out of order. I cannot talk about music on Third Reading because it is not in the Bill.
	This is an important Bill, and it will be good for the future of the United Kingdom. However, it is not a perfect Bill. There is still room for improvement, and I hope that such improvement—including full control of the BBC—will occur when it goes to the other place.

Clive Soley: We have little time left on this Bill, but I wanted to speak now, if I may. One of the major things missing from it—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I feel that I must almost apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
	It being Seven o' Clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, put the Question, pursuant to Order [10 February].
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),

Protecting the Financial Interests of the Communities

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. OJ C295, Vol. 45, European Court of Auditors' 2001 Annual Report, and No. 10625/1/02, the Commission's 2001 Annual Report on protecting the financial interests of the Communities; and supports the Government's continuing efforts to promote measures to improve financial management and combat fraud against the European Community's financial interests.—[Derek Twigg.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Wildlife and Countryside

That the draft Code of Guidance on Sites of Special Scientific Interest: Encouraging Positive Partnerships, which was laid before this House on 5th February, be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Local Government Finance

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 112) on Special Grants for the Local e-Government Programme, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Ecclesiastical Law

That the draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	A120 Trunk Road Improvements

Ivan Henderson: I should like to congratulate the East Anglian Daily Times on organising this petition, and on its ongoing campaign to support the dualling of the A120. I should also like to thank the more than 2,000 members of the public who signed the petition.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the East Anglian Daily Times and of the residents of the Harwich constituency declares
	That improvements to the A120 trunk road between Harwich and Little Bromley should be a priority, and that this work is imperative for the safety of road users, for the region's economy, and for the status of Harwich as a prime gateway to Europe.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to prioritise improvements to the A120 international trunk road between Harwich and Little Bromley.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Community Pharmacies

Bob Spink: Community pharmacies are part of the very fabric of our society. They are the front line of primary care, and they do much—and can do much more—to take the burden off general practitioners. They are not retailers; they are health care professionals. The proposals of the Office of Fair Trading would damage the most vulnerable people. Deregulation would hurt, not help, the consumer, and set back the pharmacy service by 10 years. Pharmacies should be planned at local level by primary care trusts.
	The petition states:
	To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The Humble Petition of Ms Tracy Trevillion, Mrs. Dorothy Best and others of like disposition sheweth
	That local communities are best served by local, community-based pharmacies, and that the OFT's recommendations to abolish the "control of entry" regulations would seriously damage local pharmacies.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House shall urge the Government to reject proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions, and to preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continuing provision of services to local communities.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.

TRANSMISSION MASTS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg.]

Richard Spring: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to introduce this evening's debate, and I am grateful to the Minister for being here to reply. The debate concerns mobile telecommunication masts—a subject that is of concern to many hon. Members. It is certainly of concern to a number of my constituents, who have written to me on numerous occasions relaying their fears that those masts have a detrimental effect on their heath. It is becoming an issue of such importance that Mast Sanity, a pressure group that pushes for further regulation on the erection of masts, has organised a demonstration for this coming Saturday against what it calls the
	"continued widespread abuse of Planning and Insensitive siting of Mobile Phone Masts too close to homes and communities across the UK."
	I note that we have had several Adjournment debates on the subject in the past. I do not want simply to reiterate all the old arguments, as much of the scientific data is well summarised in the Stewart report, which remains the standard work on the subject. Nevertheless, following the report's recommendation for further research, a research programme, called the Link mobile telecommunications and health research programme, was set up to look into the possible health impact of mobile telecommunications. Following calls for research applications, I understand that the programme is to undertake research into the possible health impact of mobile phone base stations and masts. That new area of research will be unique as it will be a series of human volunteer studies. The volunteer group is to consist of individuals who attribute symptoms of acute ill health to their exposure to emissions from base stations.
	According to industry figures, more than two thirds of the total population of the UK use a mobile phone. The growth in the mobile communications sector in the past 15 years has been remarkable and is set to continue. That creates pressure because of the demand for mobile phone services. I fully appreciate the somewhat schizoid view of many people, which is to find mobile phones indispensable in their lives, but to dislike the often intrusive communications structures.
	Mobile phones will simply not work without the supporting infrastructure of the masts. There has been a huge increase in the number of masts being erected across the country, and my constituency has not escaped that trend. Their siting causes genuine problems, on which I wish to focus my comments. I want to ensure that my constituents are able to enjoy the benefits that flow from a greater choice of service providers and a broader range of services, but not at a price of risking the health of those who live near transmission masts.
	The Government have something of a dilemma of their own. In view of the popular hostility towards mobile phone masts, further regulation is demanded by the public and by local councils, but the Government are also committed to encouraging the development of new technologies such as mobile phones, and have sold the licences for radio spectrum for third generation mobile phones for £22.5 billion.
	My interest in the issue has been prompted by constituents' very real concerns. One concern is the siting of a telecommunications base station and relevant equipment on and around a water tower in a residential area in the town of Haverhill. Such has been the negative impact that the area has seen a resulting loss of property values. Another concern arises in an area of high population density, close to three schools. Since the transmission mast was erected, close to a number of neighbouring properties, residents within a large circumference around the mast have experienced unexplained headaches, tiredness and a general feeling of ill health. A constituent of mine, Mr. Mark Wheal, has lived at the same address for 30 years, but since the erection of the transmission mast he has suffered from some of the symptoms that I have just described and has even had—I am appalled to say—an epileptic seizure. Mr. Wheal tells me that he has never suffered from such health problems before.
	There have been masts on the aforementioned water tower since 1995. Another constituent of mine, Mr. John Insole, who has been a distinguished Haverhill citizen, has suffered from a number of health problems and has told me the remarkable story of his aunt, Mrs. Doris Barnes. She came to live with Mr. Insole for four years, right next to the water tower. After being diagnosed as suffering from a series of small strokes, she became housebound, needed 24-hour care, and was given just three months to live. That of course became an intolerable strain on Mr. Insole and his wife, and Mrs. Barnes went to live in a nursing home outside the town. Incredibly, within a fortnight, she was well, could cope with everyday tasks, and lived for another four years.
	All of those distressing problems have been ascribed by local residents to the erection of transmission masts nearby. Additionally, there are now clear instances of interference in radio and television programmes. They are, to say the least, highly irritating. In those circumstances, it would have been inconceivable for me, as the local Member of Parliament, not to respond.
	Although the Stewart report has been discussed endlessly, and although it represents the current conventional wisdom, I wish briefly to comment on it. It is fair to say that its conclusions are subtle, complex and rather confusing for many people. Simply quoting the report's conclusions will do nothing to allay the fears of residents living near the masts in Haverhill that have caused so much controversy.
	In my experience, telecommunications companies have always tended to quote the basic conclusion of the expert group in the report. It states:
	"We conclude that the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines. However, there can be indirect effects on their well being in some cases."
	Later, though, the report states:
	"There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests there may be biological . . . effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines . . . We conclude that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach."
	Professor Stewart concluded that the evidence was not decisive either way. As a result, he recommended the use of the precautionary principle in the siting of transmission masts. In particular, he recommended that the masts be situated away from schools and other places where young people, who may be more susceptible to the signals emitted by masts, might gather.
	I therefore very much welcome the new study, as it will focus entirely on base stations. There is a great deal of research into the use of handsets, but there is a clear need to look at health risks from mobile phone base stations. It is my understanding that this is the first study to look at people who think that they are ill, and at the masts themselves. Until now, there has been a struggle to research the effects of masts on health, because so many devices produce electromagnetic fields—including electricity cables and household equipment—which makes it hard to separate one device from another.
	By using volunteers who specifically cite masts as the cause of their illnesses, the new research will avoid that. Even so, for the spirit of the Stewart report to be applied, there needs to be much greater local accountability, and more stringent controls on the siting of masts.
	I acknowledge that there has been a partial movement in that direction since the Stewart report was published. Masts up to 15 m high are now subject to longer periods of consultation, so that they are exactly the same as applications for planning permission. Even so, the prior approval procedures still apply. They are not subject to a full planning clearance procedure. There is a narrow requirement that schools should be consulted, but there is no obligation to meet the requests of schools if they choose to make them. Therein lies a paradox.
	Crucially, however, the law does not allow local authorities to adopt a precautionary principle approach of their own. Ultimately, what will happen is that, if authorities defend the interests of local residents and reject the application, they will do so knowing that it is highly likely that, under the current guidelines, the mobile phone companies will ultimately win on appeal. That appeal will include the award of costs against the local authority. Alternatively, the authority could choose to give in, even though that might be very much against the wishes of the people who elected councillors to represent them.
	Both district councils that embrace my constituency, St. Edmundsbury borough council and Forest Heath district council, support me in bringing this matter to Parliament. I have received letters to that effect from the leader of St. Edmundsbury borough council and the chief executive of Forest Heath district council. The concerns apply in the whole area covered by those councils and beyond. They both favour, as I do, new powers being given to local authorities that are more directive as to where masts may or may not be placed. A mechanism whereby broad grounds of public anxiety are accepted as a legitimate reason for turning down an application needs to be considered, and the effective loophole currently provided by the 15 m height cut-off should be addressed.
	In a letter to me, the chief executive of Forest Heath district council very much supported the line of thinking that I have outlined and expressed that view in the following terms:
	"In the context of this summary of the current position, I am able to confirm on behalf of Forest Heath District Council that we would welcome your proposed change to the existing arrangements. This would ensure that local planning authorities have a discretionary power to oversee/control such development for the benefit of their residents.
	In seeking to bring about this important amendment, my council would also like to consider the possibility of revising PPG8 to allow LPAs to regard health issues as a material consideration when addressing any proposal to install a telecommunications mast." I should add in passing that this has been a very live issue among the residents of Newmarket, also in my constituency. Similarly, the leader of St. Edmundsbury borough council indicated his preference for the location of transmission antennae in the non-residential parts of Haverhill.
	I hope that the Government will consider such moves, especially given the results of the study. They would give local authorities more flexibility and give councillors the right to balance the arguments about the location of transmission masts. With all the attendant concerns about health and other risks, the time has come to move on. If, through the debate, I can help to do that, I know how much it will be appreciated by so many of my concerned constituents and their elected local councillors.

Stephen Timms: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on his initiative in raising these matters with the House.
	There are many different uses for radio communications, most of which need some kind of transmission mast: television and radio, business communications, the utilities, the emergency services, point-to-point links for the fixed telephone network and the ubiquitous mobile phone network, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. All those uses are vital to our way of life and are important for our economy.
	Due to the enormous and ever-increasing demand for mobile communications, their transmission masts most often cause public concern. The UK has nearly 50 million subscribers, approaching 80 per cent. of the population, making us the third biggest mobile market in Europe. More than 30 million UK subscribers use a pre-paid mobile package. That means that the benefits of mobile phones are available to all and reach every sector of society. The technology is inclusive, which was not envisaged when the developments were originally introduced. It is convenient and adds to our safety and comfort.
	The technology is of vital importance for the whole economy. Industries depend on communication on the move; transport, haulage and distribution would stop without it. M-commerce—mobile commerce—is an increasingly important element of the economy.
	In terms of value added, the Office for National Statistics estimates that the mobile sector contributes £18 billion, or about 2 per cent. of gross domestic product. To put that in perspective, that contribution is about the same as that made by the entire automotive sector. Furthermore, it is growing by 10 per cent. a year—in an industry that started only 15 years ago.
	The industry is competitive. In addition to the five mobile operators, 250 licensed companies offer national or international services. The UK is certainly Europe's most competitive communications market.
	The world's major telecoms operators, service providers and equipment manufacturers are almost all resident in the United Kingdom. They are attracted by our strengths in technology, innovation and design, the highly deregulated marketplace and the attractive business environment. A lot of them have their worldwide research and development headquarters in the UK as well. We are a world leader in technological development in mobile telecoms, particularly in new wireless technologies, but if we want to have communications, as the vast majority of people do, we must have the infrastructure to support them.
	To ensure usable national coverage, there needs to be a national network of base stations and masts. Steps are being taken to minimise the number of masts to cover any area. Buildings or other physical features will block or deflect radio waves, so by placing a mast on a tall building it is possible to cover a wider area than a mast at street level. However, there is another limit: every base station can handle only a certain number of calls at a time. The more the usage, the greater the number of base stations needed to cover a given area, so masts are most common in urban areas.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the desirability of locating masts in non-residential areas, but, as coverage in urban areas is desired, masts have to be sited there as well. Network sharing makes a valuable contribution to minimising the number of masts needed because different operators can use the same mast, but it has limitations.
	Yesterday was a significant milestone in the development of mobile communications. Along with Italy, the UK became the first major market in Europe to roll out a third generation service with the launch of 3 by Hutchison 3G—one of the companies that bought a licence after the licence auction. I am certain that many hon. Members will soon be sporting their 3G phones and that one of the first things that they will wish to do is download the video message of welcome that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has recorded.
	The 3G network operates at a higher frequency than the current 2G network, so although it can carry large amounts of data, its range is shorter than that of 2G. Operators are reusing 2G sites for 3G, but some extra masts are inevitably required to fill in gaps in the coverage. As the new entrant to the market, 3 has taken all the available opportunities to share mast sites with other operators and to use existing structures whenever it can, but it has had to build up its network from scratch.
	Some people may ask why it was felt necessary to bring in an additional mobile operator, with all its extra masts, when we already had four operators. The advantage of our policy in encouraging a new entrant is an increase in competition. We are already seeing the positive benefits of that policy, despite the problems in the mobile communications market caused by the high-tech downturn. Strong competitive pressure has ensured that all five UK operators are committed to rolling out next-generation networks in this country.
	The new entrant, 3, has to ensure that its launch is a success; it does not have an existing 2G network to fall back on. That puts huge pressure on the other four operators to follow suit or suffer damage to their competitive positions. Roll-outs of 3G throughout Europe have been delayed, but by less in the UK than elsewhere. One of the other operators has publicly announced that its 3G roll-out elsewhere in Europe is on hold, but it is pushing ahead in the UK; it cannot afford to delay because of the UK market's competitiveness. The economic benefit of mobile communications is widely recognised and would not be disputed, but the hon. Gentleman has raised a fair concern about health issues, and I want to say a little about that.
	In 1999, my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Public Health, who is now the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, set up the independent expert group, chaired by Sir William Stewart, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The group called for written evidence and held a number of public meetings. The Stewart report was published on 11 May 2000. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, it is the definitive work on this subject. It contained recommendations based on a thorough review of the available scientific data on the health effects, and it took into account the evidence that was received.
	The report's key conclusions have been referred to and read by the hon. Gentleman. It concluded that the balance of evidence indicated that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of the levels in the guidelines. It recommended a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies until much more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects becomes available. It went on to recommend that an independent research programme should be carried out, along with an audit of emissions at locations close to the most sensitive sites, such as schools and hospitals.
	The Government welcomed the Stewart report and we accepted the advice on the need for a precautionary approach and on the establishment of a research programme. The mobile telecommunications health research programme was established in 2001, and about 18 research projects are now running. The hon. Gentleman has referred to a new piece of work that is being conducted. As new results emerge, we will pay very close attention to them. If any evidence exists, beyond the anecdotal, of problems in this area, we will pay particularly close attention to it.
	The Stewart report recommended an independent audit of base stations, which is being taken forward by the Radiocommunications Agency. That has focused initially on schools in particular, and will be looking at some other sensitive sites, too. The results of its second year of surveys were released last month, and are available on the Radiocommunications Agency's website at www.radio.gov.uk. The findings are reassuring. The study has so far examined mobile phone masts at 200 sites across the UK, looking at school and hospital sites. The readings showed emission levels ranging from hundreds to million of times below international guideline levels, which are set independently by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, usually abbreviated to ICNIRP. Even the highest reading was only one two-hundred-and-seventy ninth of that limit. Undertaking health-based research on exposures from mobile phone masts is not straightforward, because, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, levels of exposure are difficult to isolate from other exposures. Drawing together the advice of the Stewart report and the measurements in the audit programme, however, shows conclusively that there are certainly no grounds for any kind of moratorium on base station installations.
	We also take environmental concerns very seriously. Our policy is to facilitate the growth of new and existing telecommunications systems while keeping the environmental impact to a minimum. Site sharing, as I have mentioned, is one way of doing that. Camouflage or otherwise making the mast less obtrusive is another. Two thirds of masts are located on existing buildings, on street furniture, or in rooftops and the like. The mobile operators are working with the Council for National Parks on developing ways of ensuring that masts and equipment fit in with the landscape in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, for example, through use of local materials in construction. After a slightly uncertain start, I am told that masts disguised as trees are now very convincing.
	Network sharing has been successful on a limited basis. For the Hebrides in Scotland, funded by a European Union grant, O2 and Vodafone agreed jointly to provide the islands with mobile coverage by sharing their networks. Fewer base stations were needed as a result, but each operator had to compromise on its coverage plans. Sharing on a larger scale could reduce competition between networks and could be against the interests of the consumer. O2 and T-Mobile are planning a degree of network sharing in rural areas for their 3G networks, although that is subject to approval by competition authorities. In urban areas, the technical limitations to which I referred mean that more antennae are needed to provide enough capacity to meet the demand of people in those areas. Network sharing therefore looks unlikely to be practicable.
	That is not to say that mobile operators can do what they like or site masts where they please. They have a voluntary code of practice, while our planning guidance note on telecommunications sets out the framework for local planning authorities and for operators. The code of practice was adopted in 2001 with the "Ten Commitments to best siting practice". The key elements are: improved consultation with communities and planners; better information on sites and on use of sites through, for example, site sharing; compliance with internationally recognised guidelines on emissions; and financial support for more independent research.
	The initiative has three aims: improving transparency in the process of building mobile networks; providing more information to the public; and increasing the role of the public in the siting of base stations. Those commitments are being put into practice in consultation with local government and community stakeholders to ensure that they are fully workable. The industry is taking this issue seriously—reflecting the level of public concern that the hon. Member for West Suffolk spoke about.
	The code is the operators' commitment to greater transparency and consultation. In addition, my Department's Radiocommunications Agency, in co-operation with the operators, has developed the "Sitefinder" database of mobile phone base stations. It is on the internet and gives members of the public the opportunity to get details of the location and operating characteristics of all outdoor mobile phone base stations in the United Kingdom. It is well worth a visit; its address is www.sitefinder.radio.gov.uk.
	Dealing with planning applications and the location of telecommunications equipment is a matter for the local planning authority. The hon. Gentleman referred to policy planning guidance note No. 8, which sets out the policy on different aspects of planning with regard to telecommunications developments, including masts and other equipment. PPG8 was updated in 2002. The main changes were: to update guidance to take account of developments in telecommunications technology and the growth of the telecommunications industry; to update guidance to take account of changes to the permitted development rights that apply to telecommunications code system operators; and, in particular, to provide advice about taking account of health considerations in making planning decisions on telecommunications development.
	Transparency and consultation are key to the guidance note. It strongly encourages operators and local planning authorities to participate in annual discussions about roll-out plans for an area; it calls for pre-applications discussions with the authority and other local and national interested bodies; and it stresses the importance of discussions with schools or colleges that are near to a proposed development. The aim is that there should be no surprises.
	The guidance note recognises the environmental concerns and it encourages operators to adopt innovative design solutions to help telecommunications blend as much as possible into the local landscape. It also encourages them to share sites where appropriate. A key element is the expectation that masts and installations should be kept to the minimum consistent with the effective operation of the network.
	I will end by quoting PPG8 on planning and health. It says that
	"it is the Government's firm view that the planning system is not the place for determining health safeguards. It remains central Government's responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. In the Government's view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them."
	There are also another two paragraphs on the subject.
	We acknowledge the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, which are reflected widely in our communities. We have made a number of changes to take account of those concerns, and a programme of research is in place. We will consider very carefully any new information that emerges as a result of that work.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eight o'clock.